Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President;
Mr. Jasbir Singh & Mrs. Davinder Kaur Bhamrah, Members
JAGDISH SINGH—Appellant
versus
JAGMOHAN KA ASLI LAHORE BAND—Respondent
Appeal No. 1039 of 1997—Decided on 28.9.1998
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Complainant booked opposite party for attending function of marriage of his son with band -Non-availability of band on occasion - Complaint - District Forum allowed complaint - Directed opposite party to refund Rs. 800/- Appeal Compensation complainant must I have suffered inconvenience, harassment or tension for non-availability of band at right occasion No yard-stick to assess compensation - Rs. 1.000/- be considered as just compensation in addition to refund of Rs. 800/- as ordered by District Forum.
Held: Some inconvenience harassment or tension must have been suffered by the complainant for non-availability of the band at the right occasion. In such like matters there is no yard-stick to assess compensation which can uniformally be allowed. Only rough estimation was to be there to fix just compensation. It is taken that the marriage was performed inspite of non-availability of the band and sum of Rs. 1,000 / - is considered as just compensation which would be in addition to the refund of Rs. 800/- as ordered by the District Forum. (Para 2)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—This appeal is by Jagdish Singh complainant. The District Forum, Amritsar on July 21, 1997 allowed the complaint of Jagdish Singh with the direction to the opposite party - Jagmohan Ka Asli Lahore Band to refund a sum of Rs. 800/- for non- attending the function of marriage of his son with the band.
2. Since no appeal has been filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, deficiency in rendering service for non-providing the band on the occasion of marriage of the son of the complainant has to be accepted.
3. The only question for consideration is as to whether the complainant should be compensated by costs apart from refund of the amount given in advance for booking of the band, the answer has to be in affirmative. On behalf of the opposite party Sh. Jagmohan Singh proprietor has appeared and stated that the band reached the house on the occasion of the marriage but the complainant had arranged another band. This stand cannot be accepted for the simple reason that no appeal had been filed by the opposite party. On such like occasions, which are few in the life-time of the person concerned as occasion of marriage, it is customary atleast in this part of the country to have display of band. Some inconvenience, harassment or tension must have been suffered by the complainant for non- availability of the band at the right occasion. In such like matters there is no yardstick to assess compensation which can uniformally be allowed. Only rough estimation has to be there to fix just compensation. It is taken that the marriage was performed inspite of non-availability of the band and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- is considered as just compensation, which would be in addition to the refund of Rs. 800/- as ordered by the District Forum.
4. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum is modified. The opposite party would pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs/compensation in addition to refund of Rs. 800/- advance taken for booking of the band to the complainant. The order be complied within one month of receipt of copy of the same.
Appeal allowed.
