Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/420/2023

KULWINDERJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANIL KUMAR CHHABRA - Opp.Party(s)

ADITYA GAUTAM

05 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/420/2023
Date of Institution	:	29/08/2023
Date of Decision	:	05/06/2024

 

Mr. Kulwinderjit Singh s/o Lt. Kirpal Singh, House No.1490, Sector 40B, Chandigarh 160036

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Mr. Anil Kumar Chhabra
2. Rajiv Kumar Chhabra
3. Devesh Chhabra
4. Naman Chhabra

All r/o AKM Resort Swastik Vihar, Zirakpur 140603, India.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate for complainant
	:	Ms. Anchal Thakur, Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Kulwinderjit Singh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that on 4.3.2020, complainant approached the OPs for booking the AKM Resort (hereinafter referred to as “subject resort”) for the purpose of hosting a ceremony to be solemnized on 9.5.2020 and paid the booking amount of ₹2.00 lacs, which was duly acknowledged by the OPs vide receipt (Annexure C-1).  However, due to unforeseen outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and lock down imposed by the Govt. of India as per the notification dated 24.4.2020, all social gatherings etc. were prohibited. On this, OPs agreed to refund the aforesaid booking amount or to adjust it for a future event, but, they failed to do so. Left with no alternative, the complainant sent legal notices (Annexure C-2 and C-3) to the OPs, but, with no result.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs in not honouring the agreement i.e. not refunding the aforesaid booking amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts and also that the complaint does not fall within the ambit of the Act.  On merits, admitted that the subject resort was booked by the complainant for a ceremony to be solemnized on 9.5.2020 and due to outbreak of COVID-19, lockdown was imposed.  However, it is alleged that the OPs had cancelled the said booking and agreed to return the booking amount and had also offered to the complainant and other customers to adjust the said amount for future functions. The complainant was asked to provide the bank details so that the aforesaid amount could be refunded in his account, but, instead of supplying the same, he sent frivolous notice to the OPs on 8.12.2022.  Even after that, OPs contacted the complainant and asked him to supply the bank details so that the amount could be transferred in his account. Further, when the complainant put in appearance through counsel, before this commission, he was requested to provide the bank details and when counsel for complainant shared the bank details with the counsel for OPs on 31.10.2023, on the very next day i.e. 1.11.2023, booking amount of ₹2.00 lacs was transferred online in the account of complainant vide online transaction receipt (Annexure OP-1/1).  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had booked the subject resort with the OPs on 4.3.2020 and made the payment of booking amount of ₹2.00 lacs, as is also evident from copy of receipt (Annexure C-1), for a ceremony to be solemnized on 9.5.2020, and the said booking was cancelled on account of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and imposition of lockdown by Govt. of India and during the pendency of the instant consumer complaint, said booking amount of ₹2.00 lacs has already been refunded by the OPs in the account of the complainant on 1.11.2023, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if timely non refund of the booking amount by the OPs to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant or if the booking amount could not be transferred earlier in the account of the complainant due to non-sharing of bank details by the complainant with the OPs and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. Learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainant had requested the OPs immediately after the imposition of the lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic to refund the booking amount, but, they did not refund the same till 1.11.2023, the said act clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the booking amount earlier could not be transferred in the account of the complainant due to non-sharing of bank details by the complainant and the moment the same were shared, the booking amount was transferred in the account of the complainant, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the consumer complaint be dismissed.
   4. However, when it is an admitted case of parties to the present lis that OPs had agreed to adjust the booking amount in some future event or refund the same, and neither there is any averment in the consumer complaint nor any iota of evidence has been led by complainant to prove that, prior to service of legal notice dated 8.12.2022 (Annexure C-2), any such request was ever made by him for adjustment of the amount in future event or refund thereof, and further when the booking amount of ₹2.00 lacs has admittedly been transferred in the account of the complainant on 1.11.2023, it is unsafe to hold that the complainant is entitled to any interest on the said amount prior to 8.12.2022 and it is safe to hold the OPs are only liable to pay interest on the aforesaid booking amount from 8.12.2022 (date of legal notice) till 31.10.2023 alongwith compensation etc.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay interest @ 7% per annum on the refunded amount of ₹2.00 lacs w.e.f. 8.12.2022 to 31.10.2023.
2. to pay global compensation of ₹5,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

05/06/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member