BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.262 of 2022

      Date of Instt. 02.08.2022

      Date of Decision: 27.09.2024

Bhavish Kalia @ Happy son of Hari Krishan Kalia resident of 223, Raja Garden, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Mandakini Farms, GT Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar City-144024         through its partners Sh. Puneet Jain and Ashok Kumar Jain.

2.       Puneet Jain Partner Mandakini Farms, GT Road, Paragpur,      Jalandhar City-144024

3.       Ashok Kumar Jain Mandakini Farms, GT Road, Paragpur,      Jalandhar City-144024

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Sushant Kumar, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   None for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that on 01.03.2020 the complainant booked the Mandakini Farms Resort for the marriage of daughter of complainant scheduled to be held on 20.11.2020 for 800 guests. At that time the complainant gave an advance cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- to the OPs No.2 and 3 vide cheque no.914742 dated 02.03.2020 in favour of OP No.1. The OPs No.2 and 3 being partners of OP No.1 are fully responsible for day to day activities of the OP No.1. The complainant believed the assurances of the OP and made the payment. Thereafter due to Covid-19 pandemic lockdown was imposed and as per guidelines of Punjab Government as well as Central Government, the marriage function could not be performed in the palaces or resorts. The complainant informed the OPs as per guidelines of Covid-19 pandemic and restrictions on huge gatherings. For wedding only 30 persons are allowed and requested his advance money back from the OPs, but the OPs dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. However, the complainant experience with the OPs was extremely bad full of pain, agony, negligence and unprofessional and on 22.09.2020 the OPs refused to pay. Thereafter complainant moved complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar on 23.09.2020 bearing no.113/PDC 11.03.2021 in which the OPs admitted that they will refund the amount to the complainant but thereafter they failed to pay any single penny to the complainant till date. As per clause-15 of agreement entered between the complainant and OPs that all subjects are matter to change in accordance with changes in laws and taxes applicable as on the date of the function. But the OPs failed to perform their part of agreement. This clearly amounts to the negligence and deficiency in services on the part OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18%. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.51,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in its form and intent. It is further averred that the present complaint has been filed after concealing true and material facts from this Forum. The actual matrix of the case is that complainant had approached the OPs and has booked the marriage resort on 01.03.2020 for a marriage function scheduled on 20.11.2020. An agreement was executed between complainant and OPs, vide which advance of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the OPs for marriage function scheduled for 20.11.2020. It is further averred that the present complaint merits dismissal as complainant has not approached this Court with clean hands and the present complaint has been filed with ulterior pressure to put pressure upon the OPs and to harass the OPs. Even before filing of present complaint, complainant had given false complaints against the OPs before the DC, Jalandhar, Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar in order to harass the OPs. Since OPs were relying upon written agreement dated 01.03.2020, no action was called against the OPs.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant only as none has appeared on behalf of the OPs and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties very minutely.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant booked the OP’s Farms Resort for the marriage of his daughter scheduled to be held on 20.11.2020 for 800 guests on 01.03.2020. It is also not disputed that at that time the complainant gave an advance cheque Ex.C-2 of Rs.2,00,000/- to the OPs No.2 & 3. The agreement executed at the time of booking of the resort has been proved as Ex.C-1 containing three pages. In the month of March, 2020 there was an outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown was imposed. Guidelines were issued by the Central as well as Punjab Government. Considering the guidelines and lockdown the complainant informed the OP vide Ex.C-4 that he has decided to go for simple wedding and cancelled the booking on 07.09.2020. He also demanded refund of the deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. As per submission of the complainant, he moved complaint to the Police as well as Deputy Commissioner. Inquiry was conducted and the complainant was held entitled to the amount.

7.                The OP has relied upon the agreement between the complainant and the OP Ex.OP-1 and Ex.C-1. He has relied upon the clause that the money deposited by the complainant is not refundable in any case of circumstances in case of cancellation. He has also relied upon the declaration whereby the complainant has agreed to abide by the terms and conditions. He has also relied upon the guidelines issued by the govt. Ex.OP-2, which are relating to the reopening of more activities in areas outside containment zone. He has also relied upon the invoices to show that during that period also the resort was booked and on the date fixed for the marriage of the daughter of the complainant, he did not book any wedding for that day and he has suffered loss.

8.                It is hard fact that there was an outbreak of Covid-19 in the month of March, 2020. It is also world known factor that this pandemic was dangerous for the human life. As per the guidelines of the Govt. the lockdown was imposed and for wedding only 30 persons were allowed. There were restrictions on huge gatherings. Though, the OP has relied upon the guidelines Ex.OP-2. These guidelines show that the weddings were permitted with condition of 100 persons outside containment zone only. There were other restrictions also. These guidelines are dated 12.10.2020. The complainant has informed the OP on 07.09.2020 that they have decided to go for simple wedding as per guidelines of the Govt. Once the complainant had informed the OPs to cancel the booking because of unavoidable circumstances, then the OP cannot take the plea that the govt. allowed the wedding later on. The OP also knows that this permission was subject to certain restrictions. It is also not disputed that Curfew was ordered to be imposed from 23.03.2020 by the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, which was already in force in India. The Covid-19 was firstly reported in India on 30.01.2020. Though, the restrictions were imposed on 12.03.2020. These restrictions were imposed on 12.03.2020 as per the guidelines issued by the WHO as well as Ministry of Health Department in India. The OP was well within the knowledge of all these facts. Despite having the knowledge, the OP cannot take this defence that  the complainant should have continued with his earlier plan and the booking should not have been cancelled rather he should go as per the guidelines for inviting 100 persons only, whereas the complainant had programme of inviting 800 guests. More so, the complainant has already cancelled the booking on 07.09.2020. During those days, the marriages were conducted in a very simple way considering the restrictions imposed by the govt. of India as well as State Govt. and Lockdown and nobody could have taken the risk of their lives as well as the lives of their guests. There was no fault of the complainant rather it was a natural calamity and it was the duty of every citizen to follow and abide by the restrictions in order to save the human life. Thus, there is a deficiency in service for not refunding the amount to the complainant. In the circumstances where restrictions were imposed worldwide, the clause of non-refundable cannot be considered as there was no fault of complainant. So, from the all angles the case of the complainant has proved and the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the case of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of booking i.e. 01.03.2020 till its realization. Further OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.  

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

27.09.2024         Member                          Member           President