IMPORTANT POINT
Deficiency in the serving of the identified items - with regard to the food items served, which are subjective issues, there was, clearly, deficiency in the serving of the identified items on the menu on the day of the function for which a consideration had been accepted.

ORDER

This revision petition filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 956 of 2013 dated 06.10.2015 emerging from order in consumer complaint no. 80 of 2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (in short, ‘District Forum’) dated 26.07.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that he had booked Daulat Gardens, a marriage venue, on 16.10.2008 for the solemnization of his daughter’s wedding on 23.11.2008 and paid an advance of Rs 50,000/- to the respondent. The respondent agreed to provide catering of Singh Caterer of Chandigarh for 500 persons at the rate of Rs 325/- per person. At the time of booking, it is stated that the respondent provided a Xeroxed copy of the menu of the said Singh Caterer. The soup, snacks and other items agreed to be served were marked in red and yellow colour on this menu and on the basis of this agreement the petitioner paid the balance amount to the respondent. However, on the day of the function, it was found that catering by Singh Caterer as agreed to was not provided and the items marked in red colour on the Menu were not served. The quality of food was not up to the desired expectancy of the petitioner too. The respondent also failed to provide a stage for the DJ as agreed earlier. The petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Hoshiarpur on the basis of deficiency in service and claimed Rs 10,00,000/- as compensation from the respondent.

3. The complaint was transferred to the District Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahar) and was dismissed on 30.11.2010 directing that the complaint be filed before an appropriate Civil court. On appeal before the State Commission, however, the matter was remanded on 22.05.2013 to the District Forum to be decided on merits. The District Forum vide its order dated 26.07.2013 allowed the complaint and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1,50,000/- and Rs 3,000/- as cost of litigation. The respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission against this order. The appeal was allowed and the order of the District Forum set aside. This order of the State Commission has been impugned before us.

4. It is stated by the revisionist/petitioner that the State Commission erred in concluding that there was no agreement in writing between the parties. It is submitted that agreements relating to marriage function locations are usually oral. However, evidence such as the master Menu booklet marked in red and yellow indicating items selected and the visiting card of the respondent were produced as evidence. It is averred by the petitioner that the respondent had not placed any document on record to support his contention that catering only by Singh Caterers was agreed to and that the items decided upon by marking them in red and yellow colours were served on the day of the function.

3. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the material on record carefully.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the District Forum had rightly given the finding that there was deficiency in service since it had failed to rebut the petitioner/complainant’s averments and the affidavits filed. It is argued that there was no requirement for a written contract between the marriage hall and the hirer as the usual practice was to finalize menu and arrangements orally with payment of advance. Reliance was placed on this Commission’s order in Dr J J Merchant Vs. Srinath Chaturvedi Civil Appeal no.7975 of 2001 decided on 12.08.2002 which had held that an affidavit was evidence enough under section 13(4)(3) of the Act to prove that the “Act specifically empowers the Consumer Forums to follow the procedure which may not require more time or delay the proceedings. Only caution r