JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President:-On 24-8-1991, Mrs. Sharda Sharma accompanied by her two children and a friend attended the 6.30 p.m. show of "Dil Hai Ki Manta Nahin" at Gemeni Theatre at Bandra. The complainant had purchased the ticketts bearing Nos. 058973 `A to 058976 `A for the afresaid show. While the complainant was watching the cinema at about 8.45 p.m. the ceiling fan in the theatre fell off and struck the complainant on her head causing the injuries. The complainant was treated in Bhabha Hospital at Bandra by O.P.D. registration No. 27443 on he same date. On medical examination the complainant was having tenderness on the right temple and swelling, tenderness and M.A. on the left forearm. The theatre is admittedly owned by the Opposite party. On the basis of this admitted fact, the complainant alleged that the service rendered by the opposite party was deficient as a result of which she has suffered the injuries and loss and therefore, claimed Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation. 2. The opposite party filed its written version on 9-7-1993 and denied the claim of the complainant. However, the opposite party in is written version admitted the ownership of Gemini theatre at Bandra and also admitted that on the date of incident the complainant attended the 6.30 p.m. show in Gemini Theatre by valid tickets for entry. She suffered the injuries due to fall of the ceiling fan. According to the opposie party, the incident has been blown out of all proportion by the complainant. It is also contended that the complainant suffered minor injuries. The opposite party denied their liabilities to pay the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. 3. In view of the admission given by the opposite party that while watching the cinema show in the theatre owned by the opposite party the complainant suffered the injuries, it is obvious that there was deficiency in the service of the opposite party in as much as the ceiling fan which fell on the head of complainant was not properly maintained. The only dispute in our view is in regards the claim for compensation. There is substance in the submission of the opposite party that the complainant had exaggerated the claim for compensation. The complainant has claimed Rs. 15,000/- for medical expenses and treatment of injuries and Rs. 1,55,000/- towards compensation. The only dispute in our view is in regards the claim for compensation. There is substance in the submission of the opposite party that the complainant had exaggerated the claim for compensation. The complainant has claimed Rs. 15,000/- for medical expenses and treatment of injuries and Rs. 1,55,000/- towards compensation. The complainant has not placed on record any proof of having spent Rs. 15,000/- for her medical treatment. The O.P.D certificate from the Municipal Hospital dated 24-8-1991 is placed on record. It is mentioned therein that Mrs. Sharma was examined on that day in O.P.D. for the injuries suffered by her and the injuries noted therein were on her face and after treatment of the very minor injuries, she was allowed to go to her home the same day. It is abundantly clear from the O.P.D. certificate issued by the Doctor that due the injuries she was not in in-capacitator disabled for any length of time or that she had to go undergo prolonged treatment. No evidence of further medical treatment had been cited by the complainant. It is unbelievable therefore, that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was spent by her on her medical treatment. There has been no receipts for the medicines or receipts for the charges paid to any Doctor have been produced by the complaintant. Although it is an admitted fact that due to the fall of the fan on her head in the theatre, the complainant Mrs. Sharma received some minor injuries, they were certainly not of such a nature as to cause her to incur an expenditure of Rs. 15,000/-. 4. In our view, this claim for the medical treatment of Rs. 15,000/- is highly exaggerated. In the absence of any doumentary or other proof, we assess the charges for medical treatment at Rs. 300/-. So far as the claim of the complainant, for compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/-,is concerned we find that this claim is also highly exaggerated. It is a fact that due to the fall of the ceiling fan on her head, she must have suffered a traumatic experience and shock and it is also possible that for quite continue after the accident in which she received the injuries she must have passed anxious moments and must have gone under mental stress or distress. We feel for this, there is a case for grating the complainant lady, some compensation. We feel for this, there is a case for grating the complainant lady, some compensation. We have already stated above that there was a deficiency in the sercive on the part of the Gemini Theatre Management in not maintaining the electric fans in safe and proper working order and for his negligence, they are responsible. It would meet the ends of justice in our opinion, if we grant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Hence was pass the following order. ORDER 5. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 300/- towards cost of medical expenses and compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Complaint allowed partly.