VIVEK LAGU vs KALPAK CATERERS

-THIS appeal arises out of judgment/order dated 4. 1. 2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 341/2003 in the matter of Mr. Vivek Lagoo v. M/s. Kalpak Caterers through Partners, etc. by District Consumer Forum, Pune at Pune. By virtue of impugned order, the complaint was partly allowed and feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by the original complainant.

UNDISPUTED facts are that respondents (original OPs) are doing catering business under the name and style M/s. Kalpak Caterers and they are the caterers at a marriage hall known as ''munot Hall'' situated at Near Patrakar Nagar, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune-68. The marriage of the complainant''s daughter was to be solemnized on 15. 1. 2003 at the said hall and catering arrangements were provided by the respondents. Rs. one lac prior to the marriage and Rs. 41,000 on the date of marriage were given by way of advance towards the settlement of the catering bill. The menu and the rates were finalized at the time of booking itself, much prior to the marriage (Annexures A and A1 ). After the marriage, final bill dated 5. 1. 2003 (Annexure B) was submitted, though, admittedly, at a later date after the marriage. In the said bill for main marriage meal on 5. 1. 2003 for 530 persons at the rate of Rs. 200 total Rs. 1,06,000 was charged. The complainant did not dispute this bill (Annexure B) except for the rate applied for main meal of the marriage which is charged at the rate of Rs. 200 per person. According to the complainant it ought not to be a more than agreed rate of Rs. 115 per person though at the time of argument it is submitted that even if it is charged at the rate of Rs. 120 per person, the appellant/complainant has no grievance. Precisely, thereafter, charging at the rate of Rs. 200 for the item mentioned earlier in the final bill is the only disputed issue which needs settlement in this appeal.

The respondent opposed the complaint as per their written statement as summarized by the District Forum in the impugned judgment, submitting that 789 guests had actually enjoyed the main marriage meal i. e. lunch on 5. 1. 2003 and further submitted that the final bill of the even date, supra, was not correctly issued. The rate was wrongly mentioned. According to them Rs. 39,959 are due from the complainant himself to them.

WE heard Mr. Vivek Lagu, appellant in person. Respondents though served, absent. Looking to the contents of the impugned order, one could see that the reasoning adopted by the learned District Forum making hypothetical calculation about the total persons enjoying the lunch on the fateful date and the rate (680 persons at the rate of Rs. 120 per dish) finds no basis either in the pleadings or the material placed on record. Looking to the Annexure B i. e. the final bill, as earlier pointed out, number of the persons is mentioned 530. According to the complainant though actually 41 persons less than 530 persons had taken the meal on that day, he does not seriously dispute charging for 530 persons. In their written statement respondents appear to have submitted that actually 789 guests enjoyed the lunch but they miserably failed to substantiate the same. In fact the final bill issued by them forefeit their such claim of increase in number of persons, more than 530, taking the lunch on the day. Referring to the menu and rate card (Annexure A) reflecting the agreement between the parties, the agreed rate is Rs. 115 for each person but charging it at Rs. 120 per person is also conceded by the appellant, supra. Under the circumstances against that item, the complainant is entitled to charge for 530 persons at the rate of Rs. 120 per person, total amounting to Rs. 63,600. Thus, excess of Rs. 42,400 charged to the complainant and the appellant/complainant is entitled to get it back from the respondent/o. Ps. Mere looking to the final bill Annexure B, which was submitted at later date, it could be seen that just to cover up the total amount of Rs. 1,41,000 received, expenditure for this particular item of lunch on the marriage day is made up.

BEFORE parting with the order it would not be out of place to mention that figure 600 persons given at the time of booking for the lunch on the day of marriage was only tentative and before the marriage the respondents were informed that about 500 people were expected to take lunch on that day. The reason for the reduced number is also given on record mentioning that wife of the complainant is employee of Bharti Vidyapeeth, and its Mentor Mr. Patangrao Kadam was celebrating birthday on the same day, outside Pune. The other grievance made is about the meagre cost of Rs. 500 awarded by the District Forum. Taking into considering the totality of circumstances inter alia including the length of litigation and the way it was contested instead of settling the dispute amicably and the fact that the money is kept locked in this unserving context, the issue needs proper consideration. Appellant/org. complainant while attending this appeal has to come all the way from Pune on number of occasions. We consider this aspect also while determining the cost as per our final order. The appeal is to be allowed upholding the contention of the appellant in the light of discussion held above and, thus, we pass following order. ORDER (1) The appeal is allowed. (2) The impugned order is partly modified. We direct that the respondent shall pay Rs. 42,400 (Rs. forty-two thousand four hundred only) to the appellant/org. complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1. 3. 2003 till its realization. (3) Respondents to bear their own costs and costs of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. ten thousand only) to the appellant/original complai-nant (Rs. 5,000 for District Forum and Rs. 5,000 for this appeal.)

Appeal allowed.