MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs BARJESH GAIND

THIS is an appeal filed by the O.Ps. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner of Complaint Case No. 785 of 2001 filed by the respondent/complainant Shri Barjesh Gaind decided vide order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum).

THE sole controversy raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the respondent/complainant had been allowed to use a park (Site No. 8-P) adjacent to Aggarsain Bhawan, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh on 3.2.2001 in order to celebrate the marriage of the sister of the respondent/complainant whereas another piece of land lying on the back site of Aggarsain Bhawan also owned by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh had been allotted for the same date to another party namely Shri Ramesh Gupta of Burail who had also got the site booked for performing a function. THE complainant reached the site booked, which was got booked by him on 3.2.2001 for setting up tents and shamiana, lighting, etc., which was to be put up in the night intervening 2/3.2.2001 so that it was completed, ready and available for solemnization of function relating to the marriage of the sister but it was found by the complainant that a huge pandal was being errected by some other person at the site booked by the complainant. THE said person was Shri Ramesh Gupta of Burail who told the complainant that he had got it booked from the Municipal Corporation. THE complainant had no other alternative but to choose another site and with great difficulty, the complainant could locate one such site in front of House No. 489, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh though it was not clean and malva was lying there, the complainant/respondent got the ground cleared and proceeded to perform the ceremony after shamiana and pandal reached there. The grievance of the complainant/respondent was that due to deficiency in service on the part of the Municipal Corporation, he suffered besides physical and mental harassment, financial loss also and he claimed a sum of Rs. 65,115/-, the details of which have been extracted in the impugned order by the District Forum.

As pointed out above, the appellants admitted about receiving hire charges of Rs. 315/- for booking of the site from the complainant/respondent on 6.11.2001 and admitted about the booking of site known as Site No. 8-P adjoining to Aggarsain Bhawan in Sector 30-A, Chandigarh for 3.2.2001. The appellants took the plea that the said site was lying vacant on 3.2.2001 and it was denied that Shri Ramesh Gupta of Burail have also got booked that site from the Municipal Corporation. It was alleged that Shri Ramesh Gupta pitched the tents and performed functions on 2.2.2001 and 3.2.2001. It was pleaded by the appellants that pandal was raised by Shri Ramesh Gupta on some other site adjoining to the Government quarters and not adjacent to Aggarsain Bhawan. It was, however, admitted that the complainant could not hold his function at the Site No. 8-P adjoining to Aggarsain Bhawan as he had to perform marriage function on some other site in front of House No. 489, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. The appellants denied that the complainant/respondent suffered any physical harassment and mental agony or any financial loss.

THE complainant filed evidence in the shape of affidavit and documents. THE O.Ps./appellants, however, did not file any evidence either in the shape of affidavit or documents. THE appellants only filed their written statement to the allegations made in the complaint case. The District Forum believed the version of the respondent/complainant and held that the respondent/complainant succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. and suffered financial loss and directed the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 18,115/- to the complainant along with costs of litigation, which were quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. The order was directed to be complied with within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the amount awarded as compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. It was also directed that an inquiry shall be held by the appellants as laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC), and after fixing the responsibility, shall make the recovery of the amount from the person found to be deficient and negligent.

THE learned Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that his evidence, though filed, was not taken on record by the District Forum. It will appear from perusal of the Zimini orders that the learned Counsel for the appellants put in appearance before the District Forum on 27.5.2002 and sought permission to join the proceeding and to file written statement, which was allowed. THE written statement was thus taken on record and a date was fixed for the evidence of the complainant who filed evidence earlier and the same was taken on record and the case was fixed for evidence of the O.Ps. for 18.9.2002. THE evidence was not filed by the O.Ps./appellants on 18.9.2002 and costs of Rs. 100/- was imposed and final opportunity was allowed. Again on 12.11.2002 neither the costs were paid nor evidence was ready and filed. Another final opportunity was allowed and the case was fixed for 25.11.2002. On 25.11.2002, the same situation remained. Costs were not paid by the O.Ps. nor evidence was filed. One more indulgence was granted by the District Forum and the case was fixed for 13.12.2002. Again on 13.12.2002, the evidence was not filed. THE District Forum showed further indulgence and fixed the case for 23.1.2003 for filing of the evidence. On 23.1.2003, none appeared for the appellants/O.Ps., which were proceeded ex parte. On 18.3.2003, the learned Counsel for the appellants/O.Ps. put in appearance and sought permission of the District Forum to join the proceedings, which was granted and the case was fixed for arguments on 7.5.2003. On 7.5.2003, the case was adjourned 7.7.2003, then to 8.9.2003 and then to 6.10.2003. It was further adjourned to 22.10.2003 and 11.11.2003. On 11.11.2003, it was adjourned to 7.1.2004 on which date costs were paid, arguments were heard and orders were reserved, which were passed on 17.1.2004 itself. It would thus appear that not only once, twice, a thrice but a number of adjournments and opportunities were allowed to the O.Ps./appellants to file evidence and even costs were imposed, which were eventually paid on 7.1.2004. We thus find no merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the District Forum went wrong in not taking on record the evidence led by the appellants. The fact remains that the appellants did not file any evidence to contradict or controvert the evidence led by the respondent/complainant. The District Forum believed the evidence of the complainant and categorically recorded a finding that the site aforesaid which was got booked by the complainant was also booked in favour of other party namely Shri Ramesh Gupta of Burail as a result of which the complainant could not proceed to make preparation for solemnization of marriage of his sister. We find no error on facts or in law in the judgment and order of the District Forum.

FACTUALLY it is not disputed that Site No. 8-P adjoining to Aggarsain Bhawan had been booked in favour of the respondent/complainant way back on 6.11.2001 against receipt No. 2657 (copy Annexure C-1). It is a matter of common knowledge that performance of marriage of a bride involves a lot of effort for making suitable arrangements for getting the marriage solemnized and in the instant case the complainant was put to lot of mental tension and harassment. The appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The District Forum has rightly awarded compensation to the complainant and no interference is called for in the impugned order of the District Forum. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with costs, which we quantify at Rs. 500/-. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.