NARENDER SINDHI vs Vijay Kumar Gupta

THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, dated 17.12.2003, passed in Complaint Case No. 76/2003 entitled Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta v. M/s. Sindhi Hira Nand Ghori Wala (Regd.).

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are, that the respondent had booked the appellant, who is a Music Band Party, for the marriage of his son to be held on 12.12.2002. The respondent had paid the initial amount of Rs. 1,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 14,000/- was to be paid later on as agreed to between the parties. However, the grievance of the respondent in his complaint filed before the District Forum was that after playing the band at the house of the respondent, the band party was directed to reach the venue of the marriage i.e., Farm House named ''Invitation Green'' situated at Bhaktawarpur Road which is at a distance of about 10 kms. from the residence of the respondent. However, the appellant not only reached the bride''s place at 8.00 p.m. but also embarrassed the guests and the family of the respondent by causing interference and indiscipline at the time of Jai-Mala ceremony and also started demanding the balance amount there and then and as such to avoid tension and embarrassment the respondent had to pay Rs. 10,000/- as part payment at the bride''s premises and the balance of Rs. 4,000/- was to be paid after the band had performed at the residence of the respondent at the time of Doli. However, the appellant refused to accompany the respondent after the marriage ceremony to the residence of the respondent for reception of Doli on the ground that they had no transport. The respondent could not arrange a transport at the last moment as it was already agreed between the parties that the appellant would make its own arrangement for transport. Thereafter, despite the said deficiency in service, on the part of the appellant, the appellant insisted on the balance payment of Rs. 4,000/- and, as such, the respondent was constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum for redressal of his grievances. The stand of the appellant in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, was that there was no deficiency in service or delay on the part of the appellant in reaching the bride''s place, however, the delay, if any, was caused on account of traffic on the roads. Furthermore, it was denied that the members of the band misbehaved at the bride''s premises or that the respondent was forced to pay the balance of Rs. 10,000/- as alleged. It was further the case of the appellant that the band party was engaged to play music only up to the departure of Doli on 12.12.2002 and as such was not required to accompany the respondent to his residence for reception of Doli. Furthermore, the appellant had also staked a counter claim as per details contained in the reply/written version filed before the District Forum.

The learned District Forum on the basis of material on record held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and as such directed the appellant to refund 50% of the amount paid i.e., Rs. 5,500/- to the respondent together with Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record, as well as have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. The sole contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in rendering services to the respondent and that the contract was for providing lights and band party consisting of 20 musicians on 12.12.2002 from the residence of the respondent to the venue of marriage only and, therefore, the learned District Forum has erred in not appreciating the evidence adduced by the appellant. We have carefully perused the order form, copy of which is placed on record. It is specifically stated that the time of reaching the venue on the date of marriage i.e., 12.12.2002 was 5.00 p.m. whereas admittedly the band party reached the house of the respondent at about 5.45 p.m. Furthermore, the delay in reaching the venue of the marriage has also not denied rather it has been stated on behalf of the appellant that the delay was on account of traffic. Furthermore, the fallacy of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant is apparent from the fact that though the appellant has denied having contracted for playing band at the time of Doli, the fact that five members of the band were to play music at the time of Doli is specifically mentioned in the order form. It is also mentioned that the transport for the band would be arranged by the appellant itself. The appellant has also denied the version of the respondent that the appellant misbehaved at the venue of marriage and forced the respondent to pay Rs. 10,000/-. However, the said fact is apparent from the order form placed on record dated 16.11.2002 wherein there is an endorsement by the respondent ''paid under protest Rs. 10,000/- and balance amount of Rs. 4,000/- be paid on Doli at home''. The said document in fact takes the bottom out of the case of the appellant and as such the present appeal, filed by the appellant being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. The above mentioned appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.