Delhi

StateCommission

FA/810/2013

T.G. LEISURE & RESORTS (P). LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK GROVER - Opp.Party(s)

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 18.08.2015

 

First Appeal-810/2013

 

(Arising out of the order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Nand Nagri, Delhi in complaint case no. 74/2012)

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

M/s T.G. Leisure & Resorts P. Ltd.

Khasra No. 646-653, Chattarpur Mandir Road,

New Delhi-110 030                                                           …..Appellant

                                     

Versus

 

Shri. Ashok Grover

1^st Floor, C-366, Yojna Vihar, Delhi-92                        

                                                                                    ....Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor – Member

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Salma Noor, Member

1.             The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP against order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nand Nagri, Delhi in complaint case no. 74/2012.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant herein booked a venue with the appellant/OP for the marriage of his daughter which was scheduled for 23.01.2011 making an advance payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 03.09.2010 vide receipt no. 11280. He further made payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 3,00,000/- as advance for dinner on 10.09.2010 to the appellant/OP. The complainant/respondent had also booked another venue with Shanghai Banquet, PSK, 14, District Centre (Near V3S Mall), Laxmi Nagar for Mehndi Ceremony which was supposed to be held on 22.01.2011 making an advance payment of Rs. 25,000/-. It is alleged by the respondent/complainant that he had to prepone the marriage of his daughter to 16.01.2011 form 23.01.2011 due to the sickness of the would-be father-in-law of his daughter. According to respondent/complainant he informed the appellant/OP about the preponement of the marriage over telephone on 12.01.2011 and through e-mail dated 13.01.2011 and also informed that the appellant/OP was free to book the venue for other events. According to the respondent/complainant as no early venue was available with the appellant/OP he booked another venue “Lemon Tree Hotel” for the marriage of his daughter as the would-be father-in-law was incapacitated to travel to the earlier venue. According to the respondent/complainant the PSK owner on whom he booked the venue for Mehndi Ceremony refunded the entire booking amount. According to the respondent/complainant the father-in-law of the daughter of the complainant expired on 30.01.2011. It is alleged by the respondent/complainant that the appellant/OP refused to refund the entire advance money of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was paid to him.

3.             Aggrieved by the conduct of the appellant/OP the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP with a prayer to refund of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of cancellation till the date of payment and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and costs of litigation.

4.             The District Forum admitted the complaint of the respondent/complainant and issued notice to the appellant/OP. The appellant/OP appeared and filed the written version challenging the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction and submitted that the appellant/OP was within its right under the booking contract to forefeit the advance money in case of cancellation of the booking. It was also contended that the booking of the venue included the dinner, basic tenting etc. In its written statement the appellant/OP had accepted that he had received an e-mail from the respondent/complainant but denied having any telephonic conversation with the respondent/complainant as was alleged. Evidence by way of affidavit was also filed by both the parties in support of their respective cases. After hearing the arguments of both the parties the District Forum passed the following order:

                “we direct the respondent to refund Rs. 4,00,000/- it had taken as advance for the booking of the dinner for the marriage day together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of the amount till it is finally paid out. We further allow Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for the harassment meted out to him at the hands of the respondent in a situation when humanity should have taken priority to the business obligations. It is amply clear that the respondent has no human values else it would have refunded the advance money without forcing the complainant to take legal recourse. This is a rare case where the father-in-law of the daughter had expired just within a fortnight of the marriage. In such a case the respondent should have adopted a pro-consumer approach to earn goodwill and mouth to mouth advertisement about its consumer friendly approach through the complainant and his known ones. which would have amplified its business in the long run. We further allow Rs. 10,000/- as the cost of this litigation.

                The above directions be complied within 30 days from the date of this order”.

5.             Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum the OP/appellant herein has filed the present appeal.

6.             In appeal the appellant has not challenged the jurisdiction of the forum and the only grievance of the appellant in his appeal is that the total amount i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid for venue including food and basic tenting. There is no dispute between the parties that the respondent/complainant had booked the venue with the appellant for 23.01.2011. An advance payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 03.09.2010 towards booking of venue including dinner, basic tenting etc. It is contended that there is no provision of only booking venue and making arrangement of dinner from outside. The customers have to pay the costs of booking keeping in mind that the venue is given with food and other services. It is the submission of the appellant/OP that advance payment was made towards food, venue and other basic services as per the agreement which the respondent/complainant had with the appellant/OP. It is contended that respondent/complainant had intimated the appellant for cancellation of his booking just 9 days before the date of the ceremony due to which the appellant had suffered a huge loss and therefore he is not liable to return the said amount. It is evident from receipt that Rs. 1,00,000/-  advance was paid only towards the booking of the venue i.e. Oakwood Lawns and it did not include the advance for the dinner, basic tenting etc. It is mentioned in the receipt that the appellant/respondent can only forefeet the amount deposited towards the booking of the venue. Nowhere it is mentioned that the amount paid towards booking of the venue included the advance for dinner, basic tenting etc. as pleaded by the appellant. In our view as the said receipt was towards booking of venue as such, forfeiture, if any, could be of the advance money taken by the appellant/OP for the booking of the venue only. The receipt bearing no. 17 and 33 dated 03.09.2010 and 10.09.2010 issued by the appellant/respondent acknowledge the receipt of the advance payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 3,00,000/- respectively were towards dinner for the marriage day. It is to be seen here that if the respondent had received the advance money as a lum-sum for the booking of the venue, dinner, basic tenting etc. then it should have bifurcated towards the booking of the venue and towards advance for the dinner. The appellant has failed to file any documents to show that the advance paid by the complainant was towards booking of venue including the advance for dinner and basic tenting. In our view the appellant can’t be allowed to interpret the receipt to his own advantage to forfeit the entire advance money paid by the respondent/complainant towards bookings for dinner and basic tenting. The receipt No. 11280 dated 03.09.2010 and 10.09.2010 clearly shows that the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- received on account of advance for the dinner is not subject to forfeiture clause. In such circumstances, the appellant is within its right to forefeit the advance for the booking of the venue only and not the advance given for the booking of the dinner etc. Further it is evident from the perusal of the e-mail dated 13.01.2011 sent by the respondent/complainant to the appellant/OP intimating about the cancellation of the booking of the venue was 10 days in advance, due to the unavoidable circumstances. By any stretch of imagination we cannot presume that the appellant had prepared the dinner 10 days before the ceremony and did tenting work.

7.             In our view the appellant has done injustice to the respondent/complainant by not refunding the amount paid towards dinner and tenting.

8.             As discussed above, we are totally in agreement with the order passed by the District Forum and are not inclined to disturb the same. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

                A copy of this order, as per statutory requirement, be sent to the parties free of costs.

                File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

                                                                                                                        Member

(Salma Noor)