Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, vs Pyare Lal on 6 November, 2008

  
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI
  
 
 
 
 







 



 

  

 

 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:   DELHI  

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer
Protection Act, 1986) 

 

  

 

Date of
Decision: 06.11.2008 

 

   

 

 Appeal No. FA-08/886 

 

(Arising
out of Order dated 24.06.2008 passed by
the District Consumer Forum(III), 150-151, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi
in Case No. 745/05) 

 

  

 

Dy. Commissioner  Appellant 

 

Municipal Corporation of   Delhi, Through

 

West Zone,   Rajouri
  Garden, Mr. K.K. Puri,

 

  New Delhi. Advocate 

 

  

 

 Versus 

 

  

 

  

 

Sh. Pyare Lal  Respondent 

 

94, MG-1, 

 

Vikas Puri, 

 

New Delhi-110018. 

 

  

 

  

 

 CORAM: 

 

   

 

Justice J.D. Kapoor
 President 

 

Ms. Rumnita Mittal  Member 
   

1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

 

Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)  

1. Respondent booked the community centre at Multan Nagar for marriage of his daughter on 25.11.03 depositing the requisite fee of Rs. 20,000/- with the appellant on 8.8.03. On account of several deficiencies in service particularly non supply of electricity, the respondent sought a compensation by filing the instant complaint before the District Forum.

2. Vide impugned order dated 24.6.08, the District Forum only held the appellant guilty for non supply of electricity whereas it absolved the charge of other deficiencies and awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. We have perused the impugned order and find that the allegation of deficiency that booking for one day would be provided from 10 a.m. upto 10 a.m. on the next day of booking but on the midnight of 25.11.03, two MCD employees visited at 12.30 mid night and started creating problems saying that community centre had to be vacated as after 12 p.m. next day i.e. 26.11.03 had started. However, this plea did not find favour with the District Forum as no particulars whatsoever of those two employees as indicated in the complaint nor the respondent proved that they demanded Rs. 2500/- to wait upto 10 a.m. on 26.11.03.

4. The next allegation about the deficiency in service that on 25.11.03, electricity was cut off due to non payment of bills by MCD. Electricity and fixtures (fans and light etc.) and water supply was to be there and the accommodation to be provided was to be 1 hall with 2 rooms, toilet and bathroom besides open ground and lawn. Since the electricity was not there, the respondent had to arrange for alternate accommodation at Sanatan Dharam Mandir besides arranging for generator sets on hire for Rs. 6,000/- and water tanker for Rs. 1500/-.

5. However, the plea of the appellant that the electricity was available which is provided only in the community hall, did not find favour with the District Forum as the appellant did not specifically asserted that the electricity bill at the relevant time stood paid. All other allegations that though security amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited but the amount refunded was only Rs. 9,975/- inasmuch as Rs.

25/- was deducted towards processing charges and further that free booking for MCD employees and ex-employees was to be there but despite his being an ex-employees of MCD, Rs. 20,000/- were charged from him as rent, also did not find favour.

6. In view of the detailed order passed by the District Forum by holding the appellant guilty for deficiency in service, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of fact returned by the District Forum in this regard. However, a consumer is entitled for compensation as to the loss, injury, mental agony or harassment suffered by him due to negligence of the service provider or the deficiency in service.

7. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

8. The impugned order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

9. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.

11. Announced on 06th day of November, 2008.

     

(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President     (Rumnita Mittal) Member   ysc