Delhi

North East

CC/78/2020

Arun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jai Balaji Tent House - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 78/20

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Chauhan, E-365, St. No. 15, Ashok Nagar, Delhi-93	Complainant
	Versus
	Rajeev Kumar( Founder/Proprietor) Jai Balalji Tent House 1449/12 B Durgapuri, Shahdara, Delhi-93	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

17.12.20 28.03.23 30.05.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is the Complainant had booked the services of Opposite Party for 27.02.20 and 28.02.20 for occasion of marriage. The Complainant agreed to pay Rs. 75,000/- to Opposite Party for services and paid Rs. 1,000/- advance to Opposite Party on 22.12.19 and Rs. 10,000/- in cash and Rs. 1,000/- through NEFT on 01.01.20. The Complainant stated that on 27.02.20 he availed the service of Opposite Party and the tents provided by Opposite Party are dirty and other services are also worse. The Complainant stated that he had requested Opposite Party to change the tents but Opposite Party did not change the same. The Complainant stated that he had to urgently hire other tent services on the same day on higher prices of Rs. 92,000/-. The Complainant stated that he request several times to Opposite Party to return Rs. 12,000/- which he paid to Opposite Party at time of booking and Opposite Party refused to refund the amount. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party failed to provide services to Complainant as promised at the time of booking and also Opposite Party did not return the booking amount to Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to refund the amount of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental harassment. He further prayed for Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.  

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party stated that the present complaint is not maintainable in law. The Opposite Party stated that Complainant had himself cancelled the deal. It is stated that before the function of lagan sagai the Complainant and his father approached Opposite Party and stated that he engaged another tent services and told Opposite Party to cancel the deal and Complainant never told the reason of cancellation to Opposite Party. The Opposite Party stated they had returned the booking amount to Complainant at time of cancellation of the deal. It is stated that Complainant himself made deal with another tent house with his own wish and accord and due to this act of Complainant Opposite Party suffered huge financial loss as at that time Opposite Party has not provided service to any other customer. Further, the Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Kumar, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We  have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he had booked the services of Opposite Party for 27.02.20 and 28.02.20 for occasion of marriage and paid Rs. 12,000/- as advance for the said services. It is further stated by the Complainant that on 27.02.20 he availed the service of Opposite Party and services provided by the Opposite Party was not up to the mark, he requested the Opposite Party to change the tents but Opposite Party did not change the same and he cancelled his booking with the Opposite Party and requested him to return his Rs. 12,000/- which was paid as advance to the Opposite Party. Since Opposite Party failed to provide service to the Complainant as promised at the time of booking and Opposite Party did not return booking amount to the Complainant. This shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
7. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that Complainant himself cancelled the deal and engaged another tent services. The Opposite Party stated that they had returned the booking amount to Complainant at time of cancellation of the deal.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5759 of 2009 held that the onus of proof deficiency in service is on the Complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The relevant part of the judgment is as under:-
8. “19. The onus of proof of deficiency of service is on the Complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the Complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the Opposite Party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”
9. In the present case, the Complainant failed to produce any evidence regarding deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party.
10. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.  
11. Order announced on 30.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President