BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                    Complaint No: 764 of 11.11.2014.

                                                                   Date of Decision: 22.07.2015

Manjit Kaur W/o. Sh. Bhupinder Singh, R/o.217, Central Town, Backside Keys Hotel, Ludhiana.

.… Complainant

Versus 

1. M/S. Bath Castle, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, through its Director Pavitar Singh.

2. M/S. Bath Castle, Phagwara, G.T. Road, Jalandhar.

…..Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                             Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

Present:      Sh. Vipin Saggar, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Navdeep Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed Manjit Kaur W/o. Sh. Bhupinder Singh, R/o.217, Central Town, Backside Keys Hotel, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against M/S. Bath Castle, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, through its Director Pavitar Singh etc. (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)-  with a prayer to issue directions to the OPs to refund the booking amount of the marriage palace of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest besides Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension and agony.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has availed the services and booked the Bath Castle Marriage Resort at Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana for marriage of her son which was to be solemnized on 03.12.2014. After due negotiation, the complainant had issued the cheque bearing No.672179 dated 09.04.2014, drawn on State Bank of  India, P.A.U. Branch, Ludhiana for the booking of Bath Castle Marriage Resort for dated 03.12.2014, against booking receipt No.565 issued by Jalandhar Office and the said cheque was duly encashed by the OPs. In the month of July 2014, the complainant herself told the Jalandhar office Incharge that due to the unavoidable circumstances/reason, the propose relations with the girl side did not be materialized and the marriage was cancelled and at that the Jalandhar Office Incharge assured the complainant that the booking amount will be refunded in short span of time, but the OPs never refunded the same and complainant in protest had sent a legal notice dated 14.10.2014 in which the complainant demanded the refund of her booking amount.  The said notice was duly received by the Bath Castle office and duly replied on 28.10.2014 and in that notice, the Bath Castle office through their lawyer specifically denied the booking amount and also denied to refund the booking amount on the false pretext. Thus, claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice, the OPs appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is not a consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands  and is guilty of suppression of true, actual and material facts, as such, she is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The complainant had booked the resort on 09.04.2014 and she had paid only token amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which is not refundable. However, the complainant did not pay the booking amount to the OPs at any point of time as booking amount of 25% is payable of the total amount. The total amount was agreed to be Rs.11,00,000/- and the booking money comes to Rs.2,75,000/-, whereas, the complainant has paid only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which cannot be considered to be booking money by any stretch of imagination and it is only token money which is non-refundable and it was also told to the complainant at the time of booking of the resort.  The complainant booked the resort on 09.04.2014 and thereafter, the complainant did not approach the OPs up to October, 2014. In between this span, the OPs had number of orders for booking for the said date, who were also ready to pay more than the amount fixed with the complainant. All those offers were rejected by the OPs due to the booking of the resort by the complainant for the said date and in this venture the OPs have also suffered huge losses. On merits, denied the depositions made in corresponding paras of complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Evidence was adduced by complainant by way of her duly sworn affidavit, Ex.CA, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed her evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP3 tendered affidavit  of Pavittar Singh,  Director of OP, Ex. RA along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R13 and closed the evidence of OPs.

5.                The case was fixed for arguments. The parties filed written arguments. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant booked the Bath Castle Marriage Resort at Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana for marriage of her son which was to be solemnized on 03.12.2014. After due negotiation, the complainant had issued the cheque bearing No.672179 dated 09.04.2014, for the booking of Bath Castle Marriage Resort for dated 03.12.2014, against booking receipt No.565 issued by Jalandhar Office and the said cheque was duly encashed by the OPs. In the month of July 2014, the complainant herself told the Jalandhar office Incharge that due to the unavoidable circumstances/reason, the propose relations with the girl side did not be materialize and the marriage was cancelled and at that the Jalandhar Office Incharge assured the complainant that the booking amount will be refunded in short span of time, but the OPs never refunded the same and complainant in protest had sent a legal notice dated 14.10.2014 in which the complainant demanded the refund of her booking amount.  The said notice was duly received by the Bath Castle office and duly replied on 28.10.2014 and in that notice, the Bath Castle office through their lawyer specifically denied the booking amount and also denied to refund the booking amount on the false pretext. Learned counsel for complainant also made reliance to the citations Manager, Abhinanda Palace Vs Ramesh Dahiwale, 2012(1) M.P.H.T (CPC) 3: 2012 (CPR) (State Commission) 38 of Hon’ble Chattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  wherein Hon’ble State Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1) (g) and 15- Cancellation of booking of marriage hall was informed 45 days prior to date of booking- However, amount of booking was not refunded- On complaint District Forum directed appellant to refund money- Award challenged by appeal- Held, since receipt of deposit of booking money was neither signed by appellant nor by complainant- Thus, it was not agreement and printed terms do not have binding effect on complainant- Therefore, respondent/complainant was entitled for refund of money- Appeal dismissed.  The complainant also made reliance upon citation Mamta Chaudhary& Anr. Vs Ramswaroopdas Niranjandas Charitable Trust III(2007) CPJ 186 of Hon’ble Chattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  wherein Hon’ble State Commission has held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 15 and 2(1) (g)—Unfair trade Practice-Non-refund of booking amount- Premises booked for two days in connection with marriage ceremony- Security of Rs.11,000/- deposited as advance amount- Marriage postponed- Request to adjust booking amount for subsequent date, rejected- Refund sought- Only Rs.5,500/- refunded- Balance amount not refunded- Complaint dismissed by District Forum- Hence appeal- Contention of O.P., according to terms and conditions security amount not refundable, rejected- Booking cancelled much prior to fixed date of marriage- Further, no material on record to show O.P suffered loss due to cancellation of booking- Order of Forum set aside- Balance amount to be refunded.

6.                Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld counsel for OPs argued in their written arguments that  the allegations leveled by the complainant are false as no unfair trade practice was adopted by the OPs. The complainant did not pay the booking amount to the OPs at any point of time as booking amount of 25% is payable of the total amount. The total amount w qas agreed to be Rs.11,00,000/- and the booking money comes to Rs.2,75,000/-, whereas, the complainant has paid only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which cannot be considered to be booking money by any stretch of imagination and it is only token money which is non-refundable and it was also told to the complainant at the time of booking of the resort.  The complainant booked the resort on 09.04.2014 and thereafter, the complainant did not approach the OPs up to October, 2014. In between this span, the OPs had number of orders for booking for the said date, who were also ready to pay more than the amount fixed with the complainant. All those offers were rejected by the OPs due to the booking of the resort by the complainant for the said date and in this venture the OPs have also suffered huge losses.

 7.               We have gone through the pleadings of complainant and also perused the entire record placed on file.

8.                It is evident that the complainant booked the marriage resort of                the OPs on 09.04.2014 for the marriage of her son on 03.12.2014 and made payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as booking advance. However, for one reason or the other, marriage of the son of the complainant  did not solemnize and the complainant asked the OPs to cancel the booking  on somewhere in July 2014 and also sent a legal notice to the OPs in writing in the month of October, 2014 i.e. almost 2 months prior to the date of booking i.e. 03.12.2014. On the other hand no such evidence has been adduced by the OPs that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, which was received by them as token money was not refundable.  Even the receipt dated 09.04.2014 does not find any mention that the amount was not refundable. Relying upon the citations tendered by the complainant, the complaint is hereby allowed. The OPs are directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/-. In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, same is allowed with no order as to costs. The order be complied by the ops within 30 days on receipt of certified copy of the order. File be consigned to record room.

                                                          (S.P.Garg)                               (R.L.Ahuja)

                                                            Member                                   President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:22.07.2015 

Gobind Ram