KARTHIK DAS vs CHEERA KUMARA SWAMY

THE complainant in C.D. 194/95, District Forum, Warangal who is working as an Engineer in Sri Ram Sagar Project fixed the date 3.5.1995 for celebrating his daughter''s marriage and the venue was fixed at Srinath Function Hall, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda. THE marriage was celebrated on a very grand scale.

ACCORDING to the complainant, he gave on 21.4.1995 a demand draft for Rs. 2,587.20 ps. and an advertisement matter about the performance of his daughter''s marriage to the 1st opposite party i.e. Karthik Ads who collects advertisements on commission basis. The advertisement has to be published in an Edition of Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper on 3.5.1995. But, there was no advertisement in Eenadu Newspaper about the marriage function on 3.5.1995. Alleging that, expecting a large number of friends after seeing the advertisement, he got lunch prepared on a large scale sufficient for 600 persons and as the advertisement did not appear on 3.5.1995 many guests did not turn up and that, therefore, he sustained loss, he filed the complaint claiming Rs. 2,587.20 ps. being the amount paid to the opposite party No. 1 towards advertisement charges; Rs. 18,000/- towards the loss of lunch preparation calculated at Rs. 30/- per head and expenses for utensils and furniture of Rs. 2,000/- and also Rs. 25,000/- towards mental suffering and agony due to non-publication. The 1st opposite party remained Rs. 1,200/- The 2nd opposite party who is the Editor of the Eenadu Daily filed a counter stating that it is the policy of their Newspaper not to publish the invitation for the marriage, unless it was accompanied by a Wedding Card. After receiving the amount and the advertisement matter for purpose of publishing, they asked the 1st opposite party to send them a Wedding Card to enable them to publish the advertisement in the Daily Newspaper on 3.5.1995. As the 1st opposite party did not send the Wedding Card, they returned the Demand Draft for Rs. 2,587.20 ps. to the 1st opposite party along with a letter-dated 8.5.1995, as evidenced by Ex. B4. As could be seen the 2nd opposite party has also sent a telegram (Ex. B3) in that regard. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on its part.

The District Forum held that there is no deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party, as it is the 1st opposite party that had collected the advertisement charges and has neglected in sending the required information to the 2nd opposite party, to enable it to publish the same on 3.5.1995. It, accordingly directed the 1st opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,587.20 ps. being the advertisement charges with interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.4.1995 till the dated of payment; Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards the costs.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the 1st opposite party preferred this appeal. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant (opposite party No. 1) that the 1st opposite party is merely an agent of the 2nd opposite party and so, he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. We are not inclined to agree with the above version, as the 1st opposite party alone has collected the money and sent the same to the 2nd opposite party after deducting his commission. Since the commission is charged on the basis of advertisement, it cannot be said that there is no relationship between the 2nd opposite party, the principal and the 1st opposite party, the agent.

IT is next submitted that there is no negligence on the part of 1st opposite party. We are also not inclined to agree with this contention. Evidently, the 1st opposite party did not send the Wedding Card to be published by the 2nd opposite party when the 2nd opposite party required it. The 2nd opposite party promptly wrote a letter on 24.4.1995 asking the 1st opposite party to send the Wedding Card and it has also informed that unless the Wedding Card is sent, the marriage advertisement could not be published in the Newspaper on 3.5.1995. IT was also followed by a Telegram (Ex. B3). But, in spite of the request the 1st opposite party did not send the Wedding Card. There is also no evidence to show that the 1st opposite party actually contacted the complainant and asked him to give a Wedding Card to enable him to send the same to the 2nd opposite party for being published. Hence, we are satisfied that the 1st opposite party is negligent and there is a deficiency of service on his part. With regard to refund of the amount, the complainant is certainly entitled for refund of the same with interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.4.1995 till the date of payment. Although the complainant alleged that he has got food prepared for 600 people and that on account of the advertisement being not published on 3.5.1995, many people did not attend and so there was waste of food. Except his oral evidence, deposed as PW 1, no other material was produced to prove to what extent the loss was incurred by him for preparation of food and how many guests attended and how much was the waste. In the absence of any such proof, the 1st opposite party cannot be made liable to pay compensation for the alleged waste of food.

MOREOVER, we are of the view that when the advertisement was sought to be published on the date of the marriage scheduled to take place at 10.15 a.m., the possibility of a number of guests attending the function is remote.

IN these circumstances, we are satisfied that the complainant is not entitled for payment of compensation for alleged loss suffered by him due to waste of food. We are also of the view that he is not entitled for any compensation towards mental agony as the rate of interest was awarded @ 18%. IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the District Forum is modified directing the 1st opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 2,587.20 ps. with interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.4.1995 till the date of payment and confirm the order of the District Forum with regard to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.