Judgment : Dt.28.6.2017

            This is a complaint made by one Sri Sachi Dulal Mukherjee of 53/8, Bama Charan Roy Road, P.S.-Behala against Asha Ceremonial House, 619, Rana Rammohan Roy Road, P.S.-Thakurpukur praying for refund of advance money paid by him to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

            In brief the facts are that OP arranged a ceremonial house which Complainant booked for his daughter’s marriage and paid Rs.10,000/- as advance booking money. Thereafter, any how, the marriage which was to be performed broke up. This fact Complainant informed on 20.8.2015 to the OP and asked it to cancel the booking and refund the money. But OP did not obliged the Complainant. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP filed written version and denied the allegation of the complaint. Further, OP has stated that as per the agreement Complainant is not entitled to the relief. In the circumstances, OP prays for dismissal of this complaint.

Decision with reason

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. To this OP filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP also filed affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OP filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. As per the prayer portion of the complaint, Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.10,000/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. The dispute hinges upon a document which is Annexure A. This document reveals that the payment was made on 11.5.2015 for performance of the marriage on 17.2.2016. This was cancelled on 20.8.2015, that means well within the time on which the marriage was fixed. On perusal of the affidavit-in- chief of both sides and affidavit-in-reply, it appears that the amount thrust is upon this document.

            It is the contention of the OP that Complainant is an educated person and he paid the booking money reading the terms of the contract which is mentioned as ‘Niamabali’. True it is that Complainant perused the ‘Niamabali’. But, unfortunately, the daughter’s marriage could not be performed and broke up. Further, it is not clear whether OP’s ceremonial hall remained un-booked on the date i.e. on 17.2.2016. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that OP suffered loss as alleged in the written version and in affidavit-in-chief. On the contrary, Complainant’s daughter’s marriage could not be solemnized has not been challenged and this is very unfortunate for a father i.e. daughter’s marriage broke up.

            Considering the above circumstances, we are of the view that if the refund of Rs.8,000/- is allowed it would serve object of justice. The deduction of Rs.2,000/- is being given for administration charges.

            The present case was conducted by himself and so the litigation cost as prayed cannot be allowed. However, considering the expenses made by Complainant, we are inclined to allow Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost.

            Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.5,000/-. But he does not deserve it because he also as committed error by perusing the ‘Niamabali’ and so on this ground he is not entitled for a compensation.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/487/2016 is allowed in part on contest. OP is directed to pay Rs.9,000/- to the Complainant within three months of this order, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 10% from the date of order till realization.