SAMPARK CENTRE, MC SPACE BOOKING, SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (HQ) Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2012-1-2
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 01,2012

Sampark Centre, Mc Space Booking, Sub -Divisional Engineer (Hq) Appellant
VERSUS
RAJINDER KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 3.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Party, as under:
"As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OP to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 4,635. The OP shall also pay Rs. 5,000 to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs. 3,000 as litigation expenses, within one month from the date of receipt of this order".

(2.)THE facts, in brief, are that the marriage of the sister of the complainant was to be solemnized on 5.5.2011. Therefore, he applied for permission to use the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, from 4.5.2011 (9.00 a.m.) to 6.5.2011 (8.59 a.m.). The permission was granted to the complainant, for using the Community Centre, Sector 39 Hall+Lawn from 4.5.2011 (9.00 a.m.) to 6.5.2011 (8.59 a.m.). The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 4,635 (Rs. 4,000 as rent, Rs. 200 as cleaning charges besides Rs. 435 as services tax), with the Chandigarh Administration Project -e -Sampark, Sector 17, Chandigarh, vide receipt dated 8.2.2011. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Chowkidar of the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, to take possession of the Hall + Lawn from 4.5.2011 to 6.5.2011, but the same was not given to him, on the ground, that the civil construction work was going on. The complainant approached the authorized Officer of the Municipal Corporation, on 4.5.2011, at 10.00 a.m., but he failed to redress his grievance. Ultimately, the complainant solemnized the marriage of her sister, on the roadside, in Sector 39, Chandigarh, under scathing sun. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the complainant, asked the Opposite Party, for refund of the amount, deposited by him, it refused to do so. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
(3.)THE Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted the fact that the complainant booked Community Centre, Sector 39 Hall+ Lawn from 4.5.2011 (9.00 a.m.) to 6.5.2011 (8.59 a.m.), against the payment of Rs. 4,635 with the Chandigarh Administration Project -e -Sampark, Sector 17, Chandigarh, vide receipt dated 8.2.2011. It was, however, stated that the Sub -Divisional Engineer, Roads Sub -Division No. 2, M.C. Chandigarh, vide memo No. 255 dated 10.3.2011 (Annexure -II), informed that the work of civil construction of first floor of the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, had been allotted to M/s. J.P. Construction Company. It was further stated, in the letter that the booking of the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, between 20.3.2011 to 31.12.2011, be stopped and cancelled to avoid any mishap. It was further stated that, accordingly, the Opposite Party, prepared the details of booking, already made from 20.3.2011 onwards and asked 16 permission holders, who had already booked the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, for various functions, vide memo No. 485 to 515 dated 17.3.2011, that the first floor of the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, was under construction and contact the Opposite Party and seek the change of venue, so that no inconvenience was caused to them at a later stage. It was further stated that most of the permission holders contacted the Opposite Party and their venues were changed, whereas, the complainant approached the Opposite Party after 45 days/from the issuance of the letter aforesaid, even though he was provided alternative accommodation/space. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
The Parties, led evidence, in support of their case.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.