Delhi

North East

CC/16/2015

Om Prakesh Wasanwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahendra Singh Chaudhry (Owner) Pooja Tent House - Opp.Party(s)

12 Oct 2018

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.16/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Om Prakash Wasanwal E-155-B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95.	Complainant
	Versus
	Mahendra Singh Chaudhry (Owner) Pooja Tent House, B –Block, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95.   Ajay Bajpayee (Manager) Vasundhra Near Sahibabad Sabzi Mandi, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

12.01.2015 11.10.2018 12.10.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant is that he had booked a banquet hall by the name ‘Pooja Palace’ located at Sahibabad belonging to OP1 on 26.06.2014 for a marriage function scheduled for 15.12.2014 through OP2 namely shri Ajay Bajpayee who was the manager of OP1 for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- against which the complainant gave an advance payment of  Rs. 30,000/- to OP2 and it was agreed between the parties that there is a function at the said party place on 6^th July 2014 which the complainant can attend and observe to get an idea of the level of arrangements and was assured by the OPs that if the function is not upto the liking of the complainant, his advance deposit shall be refunded to him. The complainant in this regard has submitted that on attending the function dated 06.07.2014, the complainant did not like the same and asked the OPs to cancel his booking and refund the advance amount of Rs. 30,000/-. However, the said amount  was not returned by the OP2 who asked the complainant to speak to Shri Mahendra Singh Chaudhry i.e. OP1 at the office of OP1 at Dilshad Garden, New Delhi. Thereafter complainant visited OP1 office where OP1 told him that on the booking date if another booking is taken or done, only then the booking amount will be returned to the complainant. Thereafter complainant stated that on 15.12.2014, OP had already taken another booking and after much persuasion by the complainant agreed to refund 50% of the deposit amount i.e. Rs. 15,000/- but instead of returning any amount, the OP started misbehaving and harassing the complainant whereas the complainant was entitled to refund of entire deposited amount. Thereafter complainant was constrained to file present complaint before this Forum for issuance of directions to OPs to pay the booking amount of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- as harassment and  Rs. 15,000/- as litigation charges.

         Complainant has annexed the copy of booking form lawn from OP for function dated 15.12.2014 for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/-                    against which he paid 40% at the time of booking i.e. Rs. 30,000/- on 26.06.2014. The same bears signatures of OP2 and the                      complainant.

2. Notices were issued to the OPs on 10.02.2015 however OPs did not appear despite services and therefore were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.09.2015.
3. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant on 28.03.2016 in reiteration of his grievance and exhibited copy of receipt CW1/1, photographs of Pooja Palace as CW1/2 (colly) and copy of business card of Pooja Palace as CW1/3 respectively.
4. Written arguments were filed by the complainant on 04.04.2018.
5. Written arguments were filed by OPs on 07.05.2018. OPs opposed the maintainability of the complaint on grounds of territorial jurisdiction since the marriage palace which was booked by the complainant on 26.06.2014 is situated at Sahibabad Ghaziabad. OPs further argued that as per the booking form / receipt terms and conditions it was clearly mentioned that booking advance will not be refundable in case of cancellation and that the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions in the said receipt and the present complaint is without any cause of action against OP1 and that the complaint has been filed to extract illicit money from the OPs and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant.

OPs have not denied not having refunded the deposit amount of Rs. 30,000/- paid by the complainant to them on 26.06.2014. However the complainant has duly signed the booking form of lawn dated 26.06.2014 against the signature of the host and a logical inference can be drawn that he had read the terms and conditions enumerated therein pertinently ‘booking advance will not be refundable in case of cancellation’ to which he has agreed in principle by signing the said document which is a concluded contract between the complainant and OP. We therefore do not find merits in the present complaint for the complainant claiming refund of non refundable amount despite having knowledge of the deposit amount being of the nature of non refundable. Hence present complaint is dismissed as devoid of merits with no order as to costs.

7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9.   Announced on 12.10.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member