State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Managing Director Prince Hotel vs Anil G on 28 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/235/2023
MANAGING DIRECTOR PRINCE HOTEL
PRESENT ADDRESS - KOMMADI KAICHOONDI ALAPPUZHA 688007 ,KERALA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
ANIL G
PRESENT ADDRESS - ROHINI THONDANKULANGARA WARD ALAPPUZHA 688007 ,KERALA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
NEMO
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NEMO
DATED: 28/07/2025
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.235/2023 JUDGMENT DATED : 28.07.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.112/2022 on the files of DCDRC, Alappuzha) PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL
MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
1. Prince Hotel, Kommadi Kaichoondi, Alappuzha - 688 007 represented by its Managing Director
2. Jameskutty, General Manager, Prince Hotel, Kommadi, Kaichoondi, Alappuzha - 688 007 (by Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan) Vs. RESPONDENT:
Anil G., S/o Gopalapanicker, Rohini, Thondankulanngara Ward, Alappuzha - 688 007 (by Advs. R. Rajendraprasad & R. Suja Madhav) JUDGMENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The opposite parties in C.C.No.112/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (the District Commission for short) are the appellants.
2. On 11.01.2023 the complaint was allowed by the District Commission and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as litigation costs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed.
3. The complaint is in respect of deficiency in service alleged against the opposite party, one Prince Hotel, Alappuzha and its General Manager with respect to the food supplied to the wedding function of the daughter of the complainant.
4. The averments contained in the complaint in brief are as follows:
On 23.03.2022 the marriage ceremony of the complainant's daughter was solemnised in the auditorium of the 1st opposite party. The complainant had a discussion with the 2nd opposite party about the marriage arrangements who assured that the wedding function would be done in a befitting manner in the auditorium with delicious food prepared by the expert chefs. Menu was also given by the opposite parties and they agreed that the lunch would be served at 11a.m. on the date of marriage. The rate of lunch was fixed as Rs.500/- per head. The opposite parties had agreed to provide the banquet hall auditorium and lunch for 600 persons for a total sum of Rs.3 lakhs. They had also agreed to provide dinner on the previous day for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only).
5. The complainant had remitted the agreed amount for Rs.3.5 lakhs to which receipts were also issued by the opposite parties. When the lunch was served, the guests left the auditorium on the reason that they were served with overcooked and stale rice. On knowing about this, the complainant informed the matter to the second opposite party who assured that necessary steps will be taken when the next session begins. But they had deliberately served lunch by mixing previously prepared stale rise and the new red rice. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant, his family and the groom's family had suffered mental agony and hardships since the guest were unable to eat the lunch arranged. Hence, the complainant would seek for refund of Rs.3.5lakhs, the amount collected from the complainant and compensation Rs.25 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in service.
6. The opposite parties had entered appearance and filed written version with the following contentions:
The 1st opposite party is a three-star hotel having a track record of forty years with great reputation among the public. As per the menu of the complainant, all items were served to 450 persons in the AC auditorium on the wedding day. Welcome drink was also served to the guests. Non-vegetarian food was served on the previous day of the marriage @Rs.550/- per head. The total expenses for the previous day's function would come to Rs.2,92,050/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand and Fifty only) and the total expenses for lunch and dinner would come to Rs.7,93,550/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only). The complainant has to pay a further amount of Rs.4,43,550/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only). An amount of Rs.1,21,050/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty One Thousand and Fifty only) is due as GST from the complainant which was paid by the opposite parties to the Government in March 2022 itself. The complainant had declined to pay the balance, despite the repeated requests made by the 2nd opposite party. To avoid the payment of balance, the complainant had raised false allegations and approached this Commission with cooked-up stories.
7. On the side of the complainant, PWs 1 to 9 were examined. Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked. MO1 to MO4 were identified. On the side of the opposite parties, RW1 was examined. Exhibits B1 to B4 series were marked. On evaluating the aforesaid items of evidence, the District Commission had allowed the complaint.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent/ complainant.
Perused the records.
9. The appellant would assail the order passed by the District Commission on the reason that there are no materials on record to prove that the food supplied at the marriage function was over-cooked or stale as alleged. According to the learned counsel, the oral evidence that the food supplied at the function was over-cooked may not be accepted, since there is a specific case raised by the opposite parties that the complainant had to remit the balance amount and the instant case is foisted so as to avoid the balance payment.
10. For substantiating this contention, the opposite parties would place reliance upon Exhibits B1 and B2. Exhibit B1 is the bill issued by the restaurant on 22.03.2022 for a total sum of Rs.2,92,050/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand and Fifty only). In Exhibit B1, the description is shown as buffet dinner (BQ) 450x500 which would fetch Rs.2,47,500/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only). Rs.22,275/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Five only) is seen charged as SGST and CGST. Exhibit B2 is the bill dated 23.03.2022 for Sadhya (BQ) @Rs.500/- for 850 persons. The total amount covered as per Exhibit B2 is Rs.5,01,500/-(Rupees Five Lakhs One Thousand Five Hundred only).
11. The complainant had caused production of Exhibits A1 and A2 which would show the remittance of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). So the opposite parties would allege that a substantial amount is liable to be paid by the complainant. Exhibit A1 is not disputed. It bears the seal of the 1st opposite party. The General Manager of the opposite parties has been examined as RW1. During cross- examination, RW1 has conceded that Exhibit A1 was issued by him in favour of the complainant which contains the details pertaining to the marriage to be solemnised on 23.02.2022 as buffet dinner for 350 pack and Sadhya for 600 pack. He also stated pack means persons. RW1 would also concede that on 03.11.2021, the complainant had paid Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as advance. RW1 had also admitted Exhibit A2 as a receipt issued by him after receiving a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only) on 23.03.2022.
12. In paragraph 4 of the chief affidavit filed by RW1 it is sworn that separate bills were given to the complainant with respect to the expenses on the previous day's dinner and the lunch supplied on the date of marriage and the complainant had left the hotel by 3.30p.m. along with the bills issued by the opposite parties on 22.03.2022. The averments contained in the chief affidavit would show that the entire bills pertaining to the function were handed over to the complainant on 22.03.2022 by 3.30p.m. But Exhibit B1 is seen generated at 11.59p.m. on 22.03.2022 and Exhibit B2 was generated at 11.59p.m. on 23.03.2022. Therefore it is evident that these two bills were generated after the departure of the complainant from the hotel. RW1 has also admitted in the cross-examination that Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) was charged per head and 600 pacs were booked which would come to Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only).
13. On a perusal of Exhibits B1 and B2, it is clear that these two documents were concocted only for the purpose of defending this case. In Exhibit B1 table No.17 and in Exhibit B2 table No.18 are seen. The opposite parties had also caused production of Exhibit B4 series to prove that there is an outstanding balance to be realised from the complainant. But Exhibit B4 series is in respect of different institution one Southern Paper Products Private Limited. The office of the above institution is situated in the building of Prince Hotel, Alleppey. Though the opposite parties would allege that they had remitted GST for a total sum of Rs.7,93,550/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only), no receipts are seen produced by them to substantiate this fact. B 4 series are not proved.
14. Admittedly, CCTV was fixed at the auditorium and it is easy for the opposite parties to cause production of the CCTV footage to prove that the function was done without any hindrance and the food supplied was perfect.
15. The complainant has tendered evidence as PW1 strictly in accordance with the pleadings contained in the complaint. Exhibit A3 is the list issued by the opposite party with respect to the items to be supplied at the function. Exhibit A4 is the copy of the lawyer notice issued by the counsel for the complainant. The notice was duly acknowledged by the opposite parties. The postal receipt and the acknowledgement cards are marked as Exhibits A5 and A6 series respectively. The visuals pertaining to the supply of stale food and the confusion caused at the time of wedding function were recorded and the CD has been produced and marked as MOS. The CDS being electronic documents it ought not have marked as MOS. However, the CD was displayed before the District Commission with the aid of a laptop. The visuals were videographed in a mobile phone by PW5.
16. The complainant had examined nine witnesses as PWs 1to 9 who spoke before the District Commission that the food supplied at the function was over cooked and having foul smell. They also spoke that some of the guests had left the auditorium without eating the food. The evidence let in by PWs 1 to 9 is convincing that the lunch supplied at the function was over cooked and was having foul smell.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/opposite parties would submit that the complainant did not initiate any steps to get the food examined by a Food Inspector or in a laboratory to substantiate his contention. The failure on the part of the complainant in seeking an expert opinion regarding the quality of the food supplied is a fatal circumstance which would deprive the complainant from seeking a relief. Expert evidence may be necessary if the prosecution is initiated in respect of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Here, the limited question to be answered is as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. One cannot insist that the complainant should bring expert evidence by sending the food sample for analysis for proving a case of deficiency in service.
18. The National Commission in "Yum Restaurants (India) Private Ltd. vs Kishan Hegde" reported in 2020 SCC Online NCDRC 8 took a view that if a consumer files an affidavit in a consumer complaint instituted by him that the food served to him was rotten/stale/inferior in quality, such an affidavit will be sufficient to discharge the initial onus placed upon the customer. The decision of the National Commission in this regard is beneficial. PWs 1 to 9 are probable and natural witnesses who had attended the function and happened to suffer the hardships on account of the overcooked and stale rice supplied by the opposite party at the marriage function. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party that PWs are highly interested witnesses being complainant, his wife, relatives and close associates of the complainant so their testimonies may not be accepted as true and correct.
19. A matter cannot be approached with such a pre-conceived notion. The subject matter is the quality of the food supplied by the opposite party in the marriage function. When such a situation arose in a family function, the relatives and close associates alone may be available as witnesses. The only requirement in such a situation is a careful scrutiny of their evidence. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence let in by PWs 1 to 9, we have no hesitation to reach at a conclusion that they had narrated the actual facts transpired at the function in serving over cooked and stale rice at the function.
20. The challenge raised by the appellant regarding the failure on the part of the complainant to avail expert opinion by sending the food sample to a laboratory cannot be found as sustainable, since the complainant might be busy in the function and not be in a position to approach a Food Inspector or to take a food sample for sending the same to the laboratory. The version of the complainant in this regard appears to be probable. So the case of the complainant cannot be suspected or rejected on account of his failure to avail expert opinion. The initial onus on the part of the complainant in proving that the food supplied by the opposite party was over cooked and inferior in quality is discharged. When the onus on the part of the complainant is discharged, it is up to the opposite parties to adduce evidence and establish that the food supplied was not over cooked or defective as alleged by the complainant.
21. Admittedly, CCTV was fixed at the auditorium and it was easy for the opposite parties to cause production of the CCTV footage and establish that the facts narrated by PWs 1 to 9 with respect to the inferior quality of the food supplied at the time function as false. The availability of the CCTV at the venue has been admitted by RW1 in the evidence. An adverse inference could be drawn against the opposite parties with regard to the failure on the part of the opposite party to cause production of the CCTV footage that the opposite parties did not cause production of the CCTV footage on the reason that in the event if such a document is produced, it would work out against the case pleaded by the opposite parties.
22. The evidence on record would prove that the complainant had left the hotel by 3.30p.m. on 22.03.2022 with the receipts evidencing the payment. Exhibits A1 and A2 are admittedly issued by the opposite parties which bear the seal and signature of RW1 and the said payments were made on 03.11.2021, 20.03.2022 and 21.03.2022. If Exhibits B1 and B2 were the actual bills, the opposite parties ought not have issued Exhibits A1 and A2 when payments were made by the complainant. On a careful evaluation of the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that Exhibits A1 and A2 are the actual receipts evidencing the payments made by the complainant towards the whole expenses incurred for the marriage solemnised at the premises of the opposite party. So the attempt made by the opposite party to concoct Exhibits B1 and B2 to create a confusion in the case set up by the complainant is vivid.
23. The evidence adduced through PWs 1 to 9 would establish a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in serving over cooked and partially damaged foul smelling food at the marriage function solemnised at the auditorium of the opposite parties. The District Commission had appreciated the evidence in depth and arrived at a conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in serving over cooked and stale food to the guests who had attended the marriage of the daughter of the complainant. So, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the District Commission in this regard.
24. The District Commission has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and litigation costs as Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only). The compensation and costs awarded by the District Commission appear to be on a higher side. The compensation and litigation costs must be proportionate to the damage and the hardship caused to the parties. On consideration of the evidence on record, it is found that compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) would meet the interest of justice. Therefore, the compensation and costs are modified and reduced as Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) respectively.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding of the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is upheld. The compensation and costs awarded by the District Commission is modified and reduced to Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) respectively. No costs is ordered at the appellate stage.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the respondent/complainant, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission on proper acknowledgement.
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL
MEMBER
K.R. : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN
SL
..................
SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D
JUDICIAL MEMBER