BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD: THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 84/2022 Filed on 28/02/2022

ORDER DATED: 17/09/2022

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.  The said notice issued to the opposite party was returned with endorsement ‘unclaimed’.  Hence on 07/04/2022 the opposite party’s name was called absent and declared ex parte.   
3. The case of the complainant in short is that the marriage of his daughter was scheduled to be taken place on 7^th May 2020 at the Co-operative Bank Auditorium Mavelikkara.  In connection with the marriage the complainant planned to arrange a feast also to the relatives and guests.  The opposite party who is a catering contractor, was entrusted with the catering service in connection with the marriage of the complainant’s daughter.  An amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid as advance to the opposite party by the complainant for the said purpose.  The said amount was transferred on 17/02/2020 from the account maintained by the complainant with Bank of Baroda Palayam Branch to the account of the opposite party with Catholic Syrian Bank.  Subsequently due to the restrictions imposed by the Government for conducting marriage function, in view of the rapid spread of Covid-19 pandemic, the complainant was compelled to cancel the function as planned before.  In view of the Government restrictions, the complainant cancelled the booking of the auditorium and the same was informed to the opposite party in advance.  Subsequently the opposite party agreed to refund the advance amount received by him, but requested the complainant to grant 2 months time for the payment for which the complainant agreed.  After the said period of 2 months when the complainant contacted the opposite party, the opposite party requested 3 more months time for the refund stating that he was in a financial crisis and hence the complainant agreed for the subsequent 3 months extension also.  According to the complainant after the said period of three months, when the complainant try to contact the opposite party, the opposite party is not attending the phone or not responding to the message send by the complainant.  Inspite of informing the complainant through message that, if the amount is not refunded, the complainant will file a police complaint against the opposite party, there was no response from the opposite party.  Hence the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances. 
4. The evidence in this case consists of PW1, Ext.P1 and P2.    The opposite party being declared ex parte there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party. 
5. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

                   on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

6. Heard.  Perused records.  To substantiate the case of the complainant the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 and P2 were produced and marked.  Ext.P1 is the statement of account for the period from 01/02/2020 to 28/02/2020 in respect of the account maintained by the complainant with the Bank of Baroda.  Ext.P2 is the copy of the message send by the complainant to the opposite party.  As the opposite party was declared ex parte, there is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  Ext.P1 statement of account shows that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been transferred from the account of the complainant on 17/02/2020 to the account of the opposite party.  From Ext.P1 it is evident that the complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party.  Ext.P2 reveals that the complainant has demanded refund of the said amount from the opposite party.  In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 and P2, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite party.  In view of the above discussions we find that this a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.
7. In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the complainant with 6% interest from 17/02/2020 and pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of this Proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance/realization.   

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 17^th day of September,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 84/2022

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT