KARTHIK DAS Vs. CHEERA KUMARA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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/-

(3.) 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.