Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/122/2013

K.Raman - Complainant(s)

Versus

All India Overseas Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M.Ganesan

04 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 05.04.2013

                                                                   Date of Order : 04.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

             

C.C. NO.122/2013

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 04^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

K. Raman,

S/o. R. Krishnamurthy Sastry,

B8, Ayodya Flats,

South Canal Bank Road,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                                 .. Complainant

..Versus..

 

1. All Indian Overseas Bank Employees

Union Welfare  Charitable &

Endowment Trust,             

 L. Balasubramanian Hall,

Rep. by its Managing Trustee,

AIOBEU SWASTIKA,

Old No.38, New No.10, VII Street,

R.K. Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

2. The Manager,

All Indian Overseas Bank Employees

Union Welfare  Charitable &

Endowment Trust,             

 L. Balasubramanian Hall,

Rep. by its Managing Trustee,

AIOBEU SWASTIKA,

Old No.38, New No.10, VII Street,

R.K. Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                .. Opposite parties.

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s. M. Ganesan & others  

Counsel for opposite parties  :  M/s. T.N.Sugesh & another     

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to refund of a sum of Rs.4,08,480/- being charges paid towards booking of the marriage hall along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and other damages with cost to the complainant.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

                    The complainant submits that he booked L. Bala Subramanian Hall on 16.04.2012 and paid entire amount of Rs.2,68,540/- by way of two cheques bearing Nos.241629 and 241630 both dated:16.04.2012 for marriage of his sister’s daughter for 2½ days commencing from 22.11.2012 till mid day of 24.11.2012.   The complainant states that on consultation with an Astrologer the parents of Bride and Bridegroom wanted to re-fix the marriage date as 23.01.2013.   The complainant submits that on 17.04.2012 the complainant approached the office of the opposite party and requested for rearrangement of the dates of booking of the Marriage Hall as 22.01.2013 to till mid day of 24.01.2013.   But the 2^nd opposite party instructed the complainant to rebook the marriage hall to the postponed date of marriage again by paying the entire amount of Rs.2,68,540/- vide two cheques as before and confirmed that the payments made earlier will be refunded shortly as these decisions, as a matter of fact, are taken by the Trustees.  The complainant further submits that on the assurance of the opposite party the complainant once again paid a sum of Rs.2,68,540/- vide receipts bearing Nos. B-209 & B-210 both dated:20.04.2012 for Rs.1,68,540/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards rent and amenities and again towards corpus fund contribution respectively.  After a lapse of one month, the complainant once again approached the opposite party gave a letter on 16.05.2012 requesting for refund.  The opposite party issued a reply letter immediately within few minutes stating “as per the terms and conditions of the Trust, cancellation of the hall will not be entertained under any circumstances and matter may be treated as closed”.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated:11.06.2012 for which, the opposite parties gave reply notice dated:27.06.2012 but not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant.   Thereafter the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite parties states that the complainant booked the marriage hall on 16.04.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.2,68,540/- by way of cheques which is inclusive of the maintenance charges and service tax as applicable.  The opposite parties submit that no assurance of refund of any amount was ever made.  Infact, the opposite parties submits that the marriage hall is maintained by the Trust and the revenue generated is put to use strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Trust Deed and the byelaws of the Trust.  All decisions are duly taken by the Board of Trustees and in the case of the complainant herein too the decision had been taken by the Board of Trustees as contemplated under the Trust deed.   The complainant after knowing the fact that no refund would be made on any cancellation on any pretext whatsoever, has now chosen to make a totally false and baseless allegation.  The opposite parties state that as per the subsequent booking done on 20.04.2012, the marriage was organized and conducted at the Hall on the said dates and the opposite party had extended full support and co-operation in all respects for the successful conduct of the marriage.  The opposite parties submit that the complainant was fully aware of all the conditions pertaining to booking as per the conditions would entail forfeiture of the amounts paid and in fact the particular clause was read over to the complainant and his family members who made the visit so that they could have a better understanding of the conditions.   The opposite parties further submit that on its receipt of legal notice, duly issued a reply through its Advocate on 27.06.2012 denying the averments and allegations and clearly stating that no refund could be provided as the terms and conditions did not provide for the same.  The opposite parties submit that all the amounts received are duly accounted for by the Trust and that therefore the allegations made by the complainant are without any basis.  All decisions are duly taken by the Board of Trustees and in the case of the complainant herein too the decision had been taken by the board of Trustees as contemplated under the Trust deed.  The opposite parties state that the complainant might have cancelled the booking for some unexpected or unfortunate reason, yet the terms and conditions of the Trust and the rules pertaining to booking do not provide for refund on cancellation and this had been made very clear to the complainant even at the time of booking.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 are marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.      The points for consideration is :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.4,08,480/- with interest at 12% p.a. as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

 

 

5.  On point:-

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard both sides also.  Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.   Admittedly the complainant booked L. Bala Subramanian Hall  on 16.04.2012 and paid the entire amount of Rs.2,68,540/- by way of two cheques bearing Nos.241629 and 241630 dated:16.04.2012 and the receipt of which is marked as per Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 for the marriage of his sister’s daughter commencing from 22.11.2012 till mid day of 24.11.2012.   Further the complainant contended that on consultation with an Astrologer the parents of Bride and Bridegroom wanted to re-fix the marriage date as 23.01.2013.   The complainant further contended that on the assurance of the opposite party the complainant once again paid a sum of Rs.2,68,540/- vide receipts bearing Nos. B-209 & B-210 both dated:20.04.2012 for Rs.1,68,540/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards rent and amenities and again towards corpus fund contribution as per Ex.A5 & Ex.A6 respectively.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that due to unavoidable reasons the marriage function was refixed on 23.01.2012 and due intimation was given on 16.05.2012 as per Ex.A7 and requested the opposite parties to cancel the booking and refund the amount.  The opposite party sent a reply Ex.A8, dated 16.05.2012 stating that the amount could not be refunded as per the decision of trustees of the opposite party which is against the public policy amounts to unfair trade practice.  The complainant made repeated requests and demands for the refund of the advance paid towards marriage hall and issued legal notice, Ex.A9 and the opposite parties sent reply notice dated:27.06.2012 with untenable contentions.  

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the marriage hall was not utilized.  Hence, the claim of maintenance amount never arise.  Equally, the cancellation of booking was requested on 16.05.2012 vide Ex.A7.  Hence, the opposite parties can lease out the Marriage Hall to other persons.  Further the opposite parties orally assured for refund of the amount.  Since, the opposite party has not inclined to settle the matter the complainant was constrained to file this case. The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.4,08,480/- with interest and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost. Further the complainant contended that the opposite parties admitted in its written version para No.4 that a sum of Rs.2,68,540/- has been received from the complainant by way of cheque towards maintenance charges  and service tax.  Since the complainant has not used the marriage hall no such maintenance and service required.  Equally, the opposite parties received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards non refundable fund of the opposite party trust.   Hence, such huge amount received towards rent and other charges cannot be denied to the complainant who booked the marriage hall and has not utilized amounts to unfair trade practice.

7.     The  learned Counsel for the opposite parties contended that admittedly the complainant booked the marriage hall on 16.04.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.2,68,540/- in which a sum of Rs.1,68,540/- towards maintenance and service tax and sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards non refundable Corpus fund of All India Overseas Bank Employees Union Welfare Charitable and Endowment Trust.   As per the terms and conditions in Ex.A1 Clause No.4 is as follows:

“4. No refund of money paid will be made in case or cancellation.   The use of the Hall cannot be transferred by the Application / Hirer to any other person”.

The complainant after knowing fully well about the terms and conditions booked the marriage hall and paid the amount.  Further the opposite parties contended that the complainant is also fully aware of the facts and after booking of the marriage hall and in particular the fact that the cancellation of booking as per the conditions would entail forfeiture of the amount paid.  

8.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that from and out of the income generated from the marriage hall; the amount will be utilized for the purposes of Social work and charitable activities including medical camp and programmes for school children including all maintenance.  But none of the factors mentioned in the terms and conditions of the agreement and the opposite party has not filed any documents to prove such charitable activities also.  On the other hand, in this case the complainant booked the marriage hall on 16.04.2012 for marriage function dated 22.11.2012 till mid day of 24.11.2012 and due intimation given on 16.05.2012 of rearrangement of the dates of booking of the marriage hall as 22.01.2013 to till mid day of 24.01.2013 i.e. after one month time.   The opposite parties can very well book the marriage hall for various functions.   The opposite parties has not produced any document to show that the hall has not been booked by other party function on 22.11.2012 till mid day of 24.11.2012.  Equally the amount of Rs.1,68,540/- received by the opposite parties towards maintenance and service tax has not been utilized (Rent and amenities).  Equally, there is no record produced by the opposite parties that Ex.A3 amount has been deposited in trust.  Further, forfeiture of all the amount i.e. collected towards maintenance and service tax which is not  explained can never be permitted.  Therefore the above act of the opposite parties proves the deficiency in service. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall refund a sum of Rs.1,68,540/- paid towards  maintenance charges with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 05.04.2013 to till the date of this order i.e. 04.12.2018  with cost of Rs.5,000/- and point is answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties are directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,68,540/- (Rupees one lakh sixty eight thousand five hundred and forty only) towards  maintenance charges with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 05.04.2013 to till the date of this order i.e. 04.12.2018  with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant. 

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 04^th day of December 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	16.04.2012	Copy of terms and conditions of AIOBEU marriage hall
Ex.A2	16.04.2012	Copy of receipt No.205 for rental charges & amenities for marriage hall booking dates 22.11.2012 to mid day of 24.11.2012
Ex.A3	16.04.2012	Copy of receipt No.206 for corpus for the marriage hall booking dates 22.11.2012 to mid day of 24.11.2012
Ex.A4	20.04.2012	Copy of Terms and conditions of AIOBEU marriage hall
Ex.A5	20.04.2012	Copy of receipt No.208 for rental charges & amenities for marriage hall booking dates 23.01.2013 to mid day of 24.01.2013
Ex.A6	20.04.2012	Copy of receipt No.209 for corpus for the marriage hall re-arrangement booking dates 23.11.2013 to mid day of 24.11.2013
Ex.A7	16.05.2012	Copy of letter of the complainant
Ex.A8	16.05.2012	Copy of reply letter of the opposite party
Ex.A9	11.06.2012	Copy of legal notice of the complainant
Ex.A10	27.06.2012	Copy of reply notice of the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:- 

Ex.B1	16.04.2012	Copy of application for hiring the marriage hall
Ex.B2	16.04.2012	Copy of terms and conditions for the use of the hall
Ex.B3	16.04.2012	Copy of undertaking for contribution to Corpus Fund
Ex.B4	16.05.2012	Copy of letter issued by the complainant
Ex.B5	16.05.2012	Copy of reply issued by the opposite party with courier receipt
Ex.B6	11.06.2012	Copy of Advocate Notice issued on behalf of the complainant
Ex.B7	27.06.2012	Copy of reply issued by the opposite party through its Advocate
Ex.B8	.07.2012	Copy of postal acknowledgement for the reply issued by the opposite party

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT