State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.C. ... vs C. Padmavathi, Proprietor A.M. ... on 20 July, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.A.K. Annamalai, M.A., B.L., M.Phil., JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER F.A.317/2010 [Against order in C.C.No.92/2009 on the file of the DCDRF, Erode] DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2011 P.C. Murugesan, | Appellant / Complainant S/o. Chinnappa Gounder, | Pambagoundanpalayam, | Pasur Post, | Erode District. | Vs. C. Padmavathi, | Respondent/Opposite Party Proprietor A.M. Thirumananmandam, | Poondurai Road, | Chettipalayam Pirivu, | Erode 638 002. | The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.15,500/- with 9% interest, to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.25.01.2010 in C.C.92/2009.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.07.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant : Mr.V.S. Kesavan, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent/OP : Mr.T.Bhuvaneswaran, Advocate.
VASUGI RAMANAN, MEMBER
1. The complainant paid an advance of Rs.15,500/- to the opposite party for booking of Marriage Hall for his daughters marriage on 08.06.2008. The marriage was cancelled due to the death of her daughter and she informed the same on 24.04.2008. The complainant caused a legal notice to opposite party and went in person also asking for refund of the advance amount.
2. The opposite partys averments are as follows:-
The opposite party alleged that the complainant had not informed them about his daughters death and cancellation of the marriage. They denied that the complainant did not inform the cancellation on 24.4.2008. The opposite party normally used to refund the amount if they are intimated.
3. The opposite party further stated that there was no letter from the complainant informing the cancellation. The opposite party also denied the knowledge of contents of the legal notice. The opposite party averred that the Postman refused to deliver the notice as the Manager did not have Mandapam seal as insisted by the Postman and so the legal notice was returned.
4. The District Forum from the available records and hearing the submissions made by both parties, dismissed the complaint.
5. The District Forum relied on the denials of the opposite party on the basis that the complainant had not produced any proof for informing the cancellation of the marriage as no function took place in the opposite partys Marriage Hall on the date booked by the complainant, the opposite party is not liable to refund the advance amount.
6. The District Forum observed that there was no negligence of service on the part of the opposite party as the complainant had not stated in the complaint when he had informed the opposite party about the cancellation.
7. After carefully perusing the District Forums records and order and hearing arguments on either side, this Commission comes to the following conclusion.
8. There is no doubt that the complainant has paid an advance for the function to be held on 08.06.2008. It is the allegations of the opposite party that he was not informed about the complainants daughters death and cancellation of the wedding. From the materials available, it is proved that the complainant has not established his case.
9. On the contrary, mention must be made here that this Forum cannot grant any relief to the appellant/complainant since the National Commission has already held in Mukta Kalyan Mandapam Vs. N. Radhakrishnan & Anr in R.P.607/1991, dated 16.6.1994 wherein the National Commission dismissed the complaint stating the dispute as to whether the refund should have been allowed or not, does not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act so long as no deficiency in service is alleged or made out.
10. There is a contract between the two parties, where the opposite party has not violated the contract and so we cannot hold them liable.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode, in C.C.92/2009, dated 25.01.2010.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
12. The Appellant/Complainant may urge his claim before the appropriate Forum.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT