DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.267/16

Mr. R.K Agarwala,

S/o Late Shri Phoolchand Agarwala,

Residing at 4^th Floor, Layak Bhawan,

Boring Canal Road,

Patna-800001,

….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Dream Indian Weddings,

237, Sant Nagar,

East of Kailash,

New Delhi-110065

2. Mr. Sunny Chotwani,

(Managing Director, Dream India Weddings)

237, Sant Nagar,

East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065

3. Mr. Mahesh Verma,

(Managing Director, Dream India Weddings)

Diamond AC Hall, Super Mall,

Near Lal Bunglow, C.G Road,

Ahmedabad-380009.

4. M/s Crescent Events,

237, Venus Plaza,

LGF-3, Sant Nagar,

East of Kailash,

New Delhi-110065

       ….Opposite Parties

 Date of Institution    :  17.08.2016     

 Date of Order            :  04.08.2022     

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi

Complainant has requested (i) to pass an award directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs1,98,000/- paid to them as advance; (ii) to refund 40% of the amount paid to them towards wedding expenses made to various vendors amounting to Rs.6,82,330/-; (iii) to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-, the amount of additional expenses incurred by the Complainant for deficiency of service; (iv) to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation towards mental harassment etc.

          Brief facts of the case are as under: -

The Complainant engaged the Dream Indian Weddings (hereinafter referred to as OP-1) which is division of M/s Crescent Events (hereinafter referred to as OP-4) for its services in organizing the wedding of the Complainant’s daughter, to be held in Rayong- Thailand on 21.01.2015. OPs are an event and wedding management company. The scope of work of OPs would, inter-alia, include managing and providing services towards wedding stationary, concept, décor, catering, entertainment, wedding logistic, guest hospitality, photographer, videographer and vendor management etc. OPs also assured the Complainant that no commission would be charged  from venders by them. It was also further assured that they would provide bills, on actual basis from the vendors enabling the Complainant to maintain the account of all expenditure. It is also averred that one of the major reason of choosing the services of OPs over the other wedding planners was that the OPs had assured for charging “fee basis” and no commission from the vendors providing the various services, will be charged unauthorizedly. To this effect, an agreement mentioning the services to be provided & manner in which same were to be provided by the OPs was worked out. A true copy of email dated 25.08.2014 alongwith copy of agreement is annexed herewith as Annexure C/1. It is also averred by the Complainant that wedding planners usually provide their services either on fees basis or package basis. In case of fees basis, a consolidated amount to be charged is determined initially and with regard to package basis, the package is discussed and agreed upon item wise.

          In furtherance of the agreement between parties, the Complainant made the following payment to OP-3 towards wedding expenses for making payment to various vendors.

As per agreement, OP-1 was required to manage the various deptts. stipulated therein and corresponding cost was to be borne by the Complainant. As such, the OP was to provide detailed accounts of the amounts of the expenditure. It is also averred that the OPs kept on assuring that no commission shall be charged. On 18.11.2014, the Complainant made the payment of Rs.1,98,000/- towards fees for the services to be provided by OPs. The OPs showed active participation in selection of vendors for the various services, in the early stage of agreement. It was also noticed that the OPs did not provide any assistance towards other pre-wedding services such as trousseau, packing, styling, gifting and invitation card & pre-intimation cards. The OPs were also not taking interest in finalization of various vendors. During October 2014, the Complainant visited Rayong-Thailand and learnt from various vendors that OPs were charging more than 40% as commission thereby indulging in unfair trade practice. The manner in which, the OPs were executing the deliverables, the Complainant had to request them to refrain from charging Commissions from various vendors. Despite repeated requests, the OPs failed to provide the pre-wedding services as agreed upon. As such the Complainant was constrained to hire the services of another wedding planner namely Ms. Nishu Narula in Thailand enabling them to organize the wedding without any hindrance. It was not possible at this stage to dispense with the services of the OP. Hence, it was decided to divide the services/ deliverables between OPs & newly appointed Ms. Nishu Narula. A true copy of the email dated 25.12.2014 is enclosed herewith as Annexure C/5 The Complainant made a further payment of Rs. 7,10,000/- on 01.01.2015 to OP-1 towards wedding expenses for payment to various vendors. Receipt of which was acknowledged by OP-2 & annexed here as Annexure C/6. It was exhorted that as per agreement, a team of 20 representatives were to be brought at the wedding destination which later on brought down to only 5 as per email dated 11.01.2005 but only one representative was present on behalf of OPs. In such circumstances, the Complainant had to renegotiate all contacts with various vendors.

          As such, the failure in providing the services/deliverable as required under agreement, this categorically falls under purview of the deficiency in services as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OPs fairly failed to provide the adequate pre-wedding preparation, accounts for the wedding expenditure, charged commission, the Complainant had to hire the services of another wedding planner.

          It was noticed from the order-sheet of the instant case that the OPs 1, 2, 3 & 4 were found issued notices as per order-sheet dated 22.02.2017. This forum passed the order dated 24.03.2017, stating that “none is also present on their behalf today as well. They are accordingly proceeded exparte”. Therefore, exparte evidence and arguments were filed by the Complainant. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.

          This Commission has gone through the material placed on record and due consideration for the oral arguments was also given. The Complainant had asserted that one of the major reason of choosing the services of OPs over the other wedding planners was that OPs would work on “fee basis” and no Commission would be charged by them from the vendors for providing various services/deliverables as narrated above in detail. It was noticed that on the basis of initial discussion and understanding, an agreement was finalized as per email and exhibited as annexures mentioned above. The OPs introduced a card designer but they failed to associate in the card designing work and ultimately the family members had to follow up with card designer for finalization. It was shown that the OPs were short of their obligations here also. As stated above, when the Complainant was present in Rayong-Thailand, it was learnt that the OPs were engaged in charging 40% commission from several vendors. The Complainant himself re-negotiated with many vendors including Hotel etc. The OPs also did not render the accounts intentionally with the ulterior motive of collection of Commission in addition of the fees decided for them. The Complainant was forced to hire another wedding planner. The Complainant exhibited his inclination to cancel the contract/agreement but they again prevailed upon assuring that they shall not indulge in extra commission on the services. The OPs could send one person only instead of 5 to be made available as per pre-negotiated plan.

          The Complainant also asserted that the OPs could not arrange the Indian singer as decided. The Complainant had to carry out the responsibilities which were the duties of OP as per agreement. When it was noticed that the OPs were indulging in charging of Commission and many contracts with vendors were renegotiated such as fresh contract with Marriot Hotel, Caterer, Light, Sound vendor decorator, Transport vendor etc.

          After having considered the material and facts and circumstances in the case, this Commission is of the considered opinion that OPs are short of fulfilling its obligations as contained in the said agreement and violated the assurance given by them for not charging the commission as they were hired on fees basis and were to strictly refrain from charging the commission. The OPs were forewarned for not charging the commission in the middle of currency of agreement. The Complainant had also charged them for not associating with pre-wedding deliverables. The OPs did not bother to join the proceeding despite the notices were duly served on all the OPs. Hence, it is directed to refund the 50% of amount of Rs.1,98,000/- paid as fees to OPs and remaining 50% may be considered for the services extended by OPs and a sum of Rs.50,000/- compensation towards mental harassment & agony etc. ought to be  paid within  three months from the receipt of this order failing which rate of  interest shall be levied @6% on the  above amount till its realization. As regards charging of the commission no sustentative evidence is provided before this Commission. Therefore his prayer at (b) of the Complaint is found devoid of merits.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.