Government of India, Mnistry of Defence vs Anand Swaroop

IN this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 22.1.2014 passed in (First Appeal No. 339 of 2013) by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand, Dehradun (short, "State Commission"). Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant had booked a Barat Ghar, "Milan Mandir" of Ordnance Factory Estate, Raipur, Dehradun on 10.6.2010 for the marriage of his daughter, which was to be solemnized on 27.11.2010 and had paid a sum of Rs. 500 as an advance as per prescribed rules. It is stated that on 26.10.2010, respondent gave an application to the Petitioner/opposite party regarding the confirmation of the booking of "Milan Mandir". The petitioner did not give any information regarding the cancellation of "Milan Mandir". It is further stated that vide notification dated 19.11.2010 published in the daily newspaper ''Amar Ujala'', respondent came to know that a Three Days Convention of the All India Defence Employees Federation is going to be held in "Milan Mandir" from 25.11.2010 to 27.11.2010. After reading the newspaper, respondent gave a letter to the petitioner on 22.11.2010 to confirm the authenticity of above stated notification. Petitioner did not give any reply to the aforesaid letters and as such, he presumed that booking is confirmed in his name and he got busy for making arrangements for his daughter''s marriage.

IT is further stated that on 27.11.2010 (the date of marriage), the respondent went to "Milan Mandir" for making arrangements for the Barat and stay of guests, etc., he was shocked to see that "Milan Mandir" had been booked by the petitioner in the name of All India Defence Employees Federation, who were staying there. Respondent being disappointed and helpless and in order to avoid any untoward incident, went to several places in search of the venue of the marriage but could not find any vacant marriage venue. As a last resort, he got the marriage solemnized in the open compound of Junior Club located in Ordnance Factory. Thus, petitioner had committed grave negligence and respondent had to suffer grave mental, social and financial loss and had also to face grave mismanagement in making arrangements for the guests and baraties. Further, respondent had to spend an additional sum of Rs. 50,000 for this arrangement. It is also stated that guests and members of his society went to attend the marriage at "Milan Mandir" which address was mentioned on the Invitation Card but officials of the Federation were staying there. Thus, all the guests returned back to their houses due to which the prepared food had gone waste. Hence, respondent suffered a financial loss of Rs. 2,00,000 and his social image has been badly affected. Accordingly, respondent had prayed that due to acts of breach of trust and the grave negligence on the part of the petitioner, he had suffered a loss of Rs. 4,80,000. Besides the financial loss, mental and social loss/shock has also been caused to him.

IN its written statement, petitioner took the plea that respondent very well knew about the Three Days'' Convention of the Employees Federation. Petitioner had asked the respondent to use the alternative site and he was given the option to use, either Junior Club or Senior Club, as per his desire, for the purpose of the marriage of his daughter and the same was accepted by the respondent. Accordingly, the marriage took place in Junior Club. In such a situation, claim of respondent is not maintainable. It is further stated that respondent is a quarrelsome by nature and believes on legal battles because he had written several letters to his own department seeking all types of information under the Right to Information Act, which are not even concerning him. Respondent only wants to extract money from the petitioner. Moreover, "Milan Mandir" and Community Centre or Junior Club do not come in the category of consumer because these clubs are made available to the concerned departmental employees for their personal functions and whatever amount is received, it is spent on its maintenance. In such a situation, it does not come in the category of service.

DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehdarun (short, "District Forum") vide order dated 14.11.2013, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation and cost of Rs. 5,000. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same.

MS . Ruchika Pathak, the Authorized Counsel on behalf of the petitioner did not address the arguments in this case instead she sought assistance of one Mr. Madhukar Pandey to advance the arguments at the time of admission hearing on her behalf.

AS per Vakalatnama placed on record on behalf of the petitioner, it is clear that petitioner had engaged Mr. Ashok Dimri, Mr. Deepak P. Ahluwalia, Mr. Kunal Seth, Mr. Amit Prasad and Ms. Ruchika Pathak as its Counsels. On 9.5.2014, when the matter was listed for admission hearing, Ms. Ruchika Pathak and Mr. Madhukar Pandey was present. Ms. Ruchika Pathak stated that Mr. Madhukar Pandey who is present will argue the matter. Under such circumstances, we heard the arguments advanced on behalf of Counsel for the petitioner. We fail to understand that when petitioner had engaged five Advocates, why none of them except Ms. Ruchika Pathak were present on the date of hearing. Even then, Ms. Ruchika Pathak was not willing to address the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, though she had been engaged by the petitioner. Instead, she sought assistance of one Mr. Madhukar Pandey, Advocate to advance the arguments on her behalf.

WE do not approve such practice when petitioner has engaged five Counsels in this case, then why except for one Counsel, other Counsels were not present. Even then, the Authorized Counsel for the petitioner declined to argue the matter. We hope that petitioner which is a Government Department, will henceforth take necessary action in this regard in future.

BE that as it may, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was within the knowledge of the respondent, that National Convention of the Employees Federation, was going to be held from 25.11.2010 to 27.11.2010 at the Community Centre. As such respondent''s claim that no intimation was given to him is a blatant lie. Moreover, the cancellation of allotment was not mala fide but due to operational exigencies and as such no deficiency can be attributed to the petitioner. Lastly, Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain such type of complaint. In support, Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Divisional Manager, LIC and Anr., : II (1996) CPJ 31 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 2519 and Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation, : I (2008) CPJ 13 (SC) : Civil Appeal No. 4965 of 2000, decided on 8.5.2007. District Forum in its order has held: "The pleadings and the evidence show that the complainant had decided to get the marriage of his daughter solemnized in "Milan Mandir" and the opposite party had taken the rent of Rs. 500 for "Milan Mandir" 5 1/2 months in advance. The marriage was to take place on 27.11.2010. In the marriage card, the venue of marriage is mentioned as "Milan Mandir". It is also evident from the evidence that the complainant had accepted the alternative proposal of the opposite party and got the marriage solemnized in Junior Club and for getting the arrangement done, he had to get the tents, etc., erected in the compound on which a lot of money was spent. The complainant has argued that in case the marriage had taken place in "Milan Mandir", then the complainant would not have to make any expenditure on erecting the tents, etc., it has also been stated that the distance between the "Milan Mandir" and the Junior Club is about 2.00 k.m. and it being an alternative arrangement, the complainant had to suffer a lot of difficulty and he had to face acute mental tension and trauma. It has also been clear from the evidence of the complainant that inspite of there being a previous booking, "Milan Mandir" was given for the meeting to All India Defence Employees Federation.

Admittedly, the opposite party has not issued any letter to the complainant regarding the cancellation of the booking. Due to the sudden change in the venue of the marriage, a lot of mental pain and anguish was caused to the complainant. The complainant had made by booking under question by paying the consideration amount for the same. In such a situation, the argument of the opposite party that the complainant does not come in the category of consumer is not liable to be accepted. The booking of the complainant was neither cancelled by the opposite party nor did it made available the venue booked by him for the marriage. Admittedly, the complainant had to incur a lot of expenditure for making arrangements of the marriage in the Junior Club."

THE State Commission while dismissing the appeal, in its impugned order observed: "We considered the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent - -Mr. Anand Swaroop. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent is not a consumer of the appellant, is not sustainable because the appellant had charged a sum of Rs. 500 as an advance rent for the Community Centre. Once the appellant had received the rent in advance, the Community Centre''s booking is supposed to be confirmed. It the Community Centre was, later on booked for the Employees Federation''s National Convention, then the appellant should have informed the respondent with regard to cancellation of his booking and should have offered another space to him. There is no documentary evidence available on record that the appellant had informed the respondent well in time and had offered him alternative space. Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant is well proved and this appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed."

ADMITTEDLY , in the present case, "Milan Mandir" had been booked for the marriage of respondent''s daughter only after taking the advance of Rs. 500. The petitioner unilaterally cancelled the booking of Barat Ghar without giving any intimation in writing to the respondent, with the result the respondent suffered grave humiliation, mental agony and social trauma. This act on the part of the petitioner, certainly amounts to deficiency in service. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner had refunded the amount of advance deposited by the respondent, till date. We are constrained to observe that petitioner has made certain uncalled extraneous remarks against the respondent in the revision petition which is having no bearing in this case. It appears, that the same has been done to cause prejudice to this Commission. We deprecate this conduct of the petitioner, as adopted in the present revision petition. There are concurrent findings of facts given by both the Fora below. It is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''Act''), the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited.

UNDER Section 21 of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

HON ''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., : IV (2011) SLT 303 : II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) : 2011 (3) Scale 654, has observed: "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora."

This Commission in M/s. Contour Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. K.N. Bhuvanendranatha Kantath, : II (2013) CPJ 245(NC) : RP No. 393 of 2012, decided on 7.3.2013 in similar circumstances, had observed: "13. It is manifestly clear from the record that booking done by respondent for marriage of his daughter was unilaterally cancelled by the petitioner just to accommodate another business associate. We can well imagine the trauma, pain and sufferings undergone by the respondent (being father of a daughter whose marriage was fixed) when venue of the marriage booked earlier was cancelled arbitrarily by the petitioner. It is not that respondent alone has undergone the mental agony due to illegal act of the petitioner but his other family members also on the solemn occasion of marriage have undergone trauma, pain and sufferings. The mental agony and sufferings undergone on such occasion by a family cannot be measured just in terms of money alone. The only purpose of the petitioner in cancelling the booking of respondent was just to oblige another business associate. This, act on the part of the petitioner was most inhuman and cruel."

THUS , no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to call for interference in the exercise of power under Section 21(b) of the Act, since two Fora below have given cogent reasons in their order, which do not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction.

IT is not that every order passed by the Fora below is to be challenged by a litigant even when the same is based on sound reasoning. The present case is a fit case, where punitive damages must be imposed upon the petitioner and same should be awarded to the respondent. Accordingly, we dismiss the present revision petition with punitive damages of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) to be paid to the respondent.

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the amount of punitive damages by way of demand draft in the name of respondent with this Commission, within six weeks from today. The amount of punitive damages shall be paid to the respondent, only after expiry of period of appeal/revision preferred, if any. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the punitive damages within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization. List for compliance on 18.7.2014.