Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/362/2014

VIJAY SHREEMAHAL, PROPRIETOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.S. KASI - Opp.Party(s)

M. KEMPRAJ

12 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

                   TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                MEMBER  

 

F.A.No.362/2014

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.197/2011, dated 05.03.2014 on the file of the District Commission, Chennai (North)

 

 THE 12^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.

VIJAY SHREEMAHAL

Represented by its Proprietor,

P1/1, 3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar,

Near K4 Police Station,

Chennai – 600 040.                                                           Appellant/Opposite Party  

 

 

                 - Vs –

 K.S. Kasi,

Mahalakshmi, New No.22,

Ormes Road, Kilpauk,

Chennai – 600 010.                                                          Respondent/Complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party        :  M/s. M. Kempraj,  Advocate.  

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant         :  M/s. K.P. Kiran Rao, Advocate.  

  

         This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 12.11.2021 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT. (Open Court)   

1.      This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North) made in C.C.No.197/2011, dated 05.03.2014, partly allowing the complaint.        

2.       For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they were ranked in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North).          

3.       The brief facts which necessitated the appellant/opposite party to file this appeal is as follows;- The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the opposite party is engaged in the business of providing Hall (Mandapam) for conducting different functions on payment of necessary charges. The complainant had booked the hall of the opposite party on 19.05.2010 for one and half days viz., 03.10.2010 to 04.10.2020 for performing Sathabishegam function of his father, Mr.Chokalingam for which the opposite party collected a sum of Rs.2,05,665/- from the complainant towards the Hall charges and service tax.  The opposite party insisted that a sum of Rs.60,665/- should be paid by cheque/cash and the balance amount of Rs.1,45,000/- should be paid only by way of cash for which no receipt would be issued. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,05,665/- as demanded by the opposite party and the opposite party issued receipt dated 19.05.2010 only for Rs.60,665/- and gave a note with break-up details for the total charges of Rs.2,05,665/-. Unfortunately, the complainant’s father suddenly passed away on 22.05.2010 and hence he had to cancel the booking of the Hall.  Accordingly, the complainant cancelled the Hall on 28.05.2010 itself and called upon the opposite party to refund the amount collected from him towards booking the hall vide his letter dated 28.05.2010. The booking was cancelled within 10 days from the date of booking which is almost 4 months prior to the date of event.  Therefore, there cannot be any impediment to the opposite party to have a new booking for the Hall.  But, instead of honouring the request of the complainant, the opposite party sent a reply with unjustifiable, untenable contentions and regrettably chose to unjustly enrich by retaining the amount of Rs.2,05,665/- paid by the complainant by making some unilateral disclaimer statement. The opposite party strangely asked the complainant to change the date and reuse the booking on some other date to conduct another function. When the opposite party was fully aware of the unfortunate death of the complainant’s father and the booking of the Hall was specifically made for the purpose of celebrating his father’s 80^th birth anniversary, there was no possibility for the complainant to reuse the hall for some other purpose in any other date. The statement of the opposite party is very insensitive and regrettable. The complainant’s family was very much upset at that time and they were shocked and surprised at such unfair and illegal response from the opposite party. His father’s untimely death had upset the complainant deeply.  However, with a view to maintain cordial relationship and not to precipitate the matter, the complainant once again called upon the opposite party to refund the said amount of Rs.2,05,665/- paid by him vide letter dated 10.10.2011 offering one more last chance to the opposite party to return the money unjustly retained by him for the past one year.  But, the opposite party sent a reply dated 28.05.2011 reiterating their earlier stand taken by him and thus the opposite party failed to refund the amount legitimately due to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission with a consumer complaint for a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.2,05,665/- collected from the complainant towards booking of Hall with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 28.08.2010 till the date of realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant with costs.   

4.     The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing a written version contending inter alia that the allegations of the complainant are false, frivolous and speculative in nature.  On 19.05.2010, the complainant had originally booked the marriage hall for performance of function of his father to be held on 03.10.2010 and 04.10.2010 and subsequently cancelled the booking on 28.05.2010.  The complainant has concealed certain vital facts regarding the reasons as to why the Hall was cancelled.  As per the Hindu Customs, usage and practice, when a function such as Sathabishegam was fixed then the parties would fix the function only on an auspicious day.  In the instant case, the complainant booked the opposite party’s Marriage Hall on 19.05.2010.  But the reasons given by the complainant that the function could not be proceeded with is only an afterthought in order to gain sympathy of this Commission. There is much fuss and confusion on the part of the complainant regarding the booking and the cancellation of Kalyana Mandapam for 03.10.2010 to 04.10.2010.  The complainant approached the opposite party on 28.05.2010 for cancellation of the marriage hall booked for the function for 03.10.2010 and 04.10.2010  and on the very same day the opposite party sent a reply to the complainant drawing his attention to the applicability of refund class and explained the complainant to consider the option of re-booking the marriage hall for any other function in their family on some other convenient date.   Booking and cancellation of the Mandapam cannot be done by him as per the complainant’s whims and fancies.   Marriage halls are booked on certain specific days which are auspicious to the family. Due to the cancellation of Hall, the opposite party was put to inconvenience and financial loss and furthermore they would lose their prospective customers on those specific days for which the complainant is solely responsible. The complainant neither occupied the Kalyana Mandapam nor utilised the facilities provided therein and therefore there is no question of deficiency in service. The complainant is fully aware of the booking of the Kalyana Mandapam and the question of refund of advance amount are in accordance with certain guidelines, rules and regulations since the same were printed and issued to the complainant which were accepted by the complainant by signing on it.   Hence, there is no unfair trade practice,  negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.                                      

5.        Before the District Commission, the complainant and the opposite party have filed their respective proof affidavit in support of their case. Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite party. .

6.        Based on the above submissions and analysing the evidences adduced by them, the District Commission allowed the complaint by holding that there is an unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,05,665/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 28.05.2010 till the date of realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party as well as mental agony suffered by the complainant along with cost of Rs.2000/- with default interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.  Aggrieved over the above order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal. 

7.          Heard the submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record.  Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully gone through the same. Since we have discussed the facts in detail as above, we refrain from reiterating the same any further in this appeal and only the facts which are germane alone discussed hereunder.

8.      Though very many contentions have been raised by both sides, the only question that has to be decided in this appeal is that whether the order passed by the District Commission in directing the appellant/opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.2,05,665/- is justifiable and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

9.         The complainant booked the Hall on 19.05.2010 to conduct  a function of his father’s Sathabishegam (80^th Birth Anniversary) for 03.10.2010 and 04.10.2010. The opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.2,05,665/- as charges for the Hall. Pursuant to the request made by the opposite party, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.60,665/- by way of  cheque/cash and the balance amount of Rs.1,45,000/- was paid by cash and a receipt was issued only for a sum of Rs.60,665/- by the opposite party. In the meantime, the complainant’s father died on 22.05.2010  i.e., within three days from the date of booking the Hall and hence the complainant cancelled the booking on 28.05.2010 itself and called upon the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.2,06,665/- collected from the complainant.  But, the opposite party refused to refund the amount stating that the question of refund of advance amount are to be made in accordance with the guidelines, rules and regulations specified for booking the Hall which are well known to the complainant as the same were printed and issued to the complainant and accepted by the complainant. But, we are of the opinion that in the instant case the complainant has cancelled the booking within 10 days from the date of booking since his father’s death. The complainant had booked the Hall only for the purpose of conducting his father’s “Sathapishegam” and in such circumstances expecting the complainant to use the hall for some other purpose in any other day is not proper. Moreover, the complainant had cancelled the booking four months prior to the date of event and hence the question of incurring financial loss also does not arise in this case.  The conduct of the opposite party in not refunding the amount is nothing but an unfair trade practice. The District Commission has rightly decided the issue and allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest along with compensation.  In our view,  the order of the District Commission is justifiable and reasonable and therefore there is no need to interfere with the order of the District Commission and therefore, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission.                           

10.            In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North) made in C.C.No.197/2011, dated 05.03.2014. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                              R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                              PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Nov/2021