BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 07^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been  filed under section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 for the following reliefs

1. Directing the opposite party to refund the advance rent of Rs.3,65,000/-.
2. To direct the OP to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, hardship suffered by the complainant.
3. To direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.21,000/- towards damages on the advance rent from the date of payment i.e. 17.12.2020 till date of notice.
4. To direct the OP to pay the interest  on the total liability  of Rs.4,86,900/- from the date of complaint till the date of realization.
5. To grant such other reliefs or reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit to be granted under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2.The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant had booked  marriage hall of OP for  his daughter marriage to be held on 02.05.2021 and 03.05.2021 by paying in all Rs.3,65,000/-. The government was pleased to permit only 50 members for marriage function as per the guideline of order dt.24.04.2021. Therefore, the complainant requested the OP to refund Rs.3,65,000/- by addressing letter, but the OP refused the repeated requests of the complainant.

The non-refund of Rs.3,65,000/- amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, OP is liable to pay interest and compensation.

2. After receipt of notice, the OP-1 appears and files version. The OP contends that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The OP admits receipt of Rs.3,65,000/- from the complainant against full rent of Rs.4,25,000/- including Rs.40,000/- towards flower decoration.

3. As per government guidelines dt.24.04.2021 the complainant was pleased to perform marriage of his daughter with 50 members in the convention  center of the OP. This fact was intimated to the complainant. Further  in order to make gain the complainant filed this complaint.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. The OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

4. Alternatively, the OP contends that OP would refund the amount after deducting CGST and SGST without any interest or compensation as there is no deficiency of service.

5.      The complainant files his affidavit evidence and relies on 11 documents. The OP has filed  his affidavit evidence  and relies on 5 documents.

6.     Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused records.

7. The following points arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

8. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1 &2:- Affirmative in part.

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

9. Point Nos.1 and 2:.In order to avoid repetition of the reasons, these two points have been taken for common consideration.

The 1^st instance we would like to refer the admitted facts. The complainant booked convention center of OP to perform marriage of his daughter  on 02.05.2021 and 03.05.2021. The complainant made payment of Rs.1,88,000/- on 07.12.2020. The contention of the complainant is that he has paid sum of Rs.1,77,000/- by means of cheque dt.17.12.2020. The OP admits receipt of in all Rs.3,65,000/- including Rs.40,000/- towards decoration charges. The OP issued Exhibit P2 indicating the facilities to be provided to the complainant. Exhibit P3 is letter of the complainant that not to  use plastic bags and plastic items. Exhibit P4 is marriage invitation card. Exhibit P5   is letter dt.20.12.2020 the complainant intimating the OP that he was not in a position to perform the marriage of his daughter due to COVID-19 effect he called upon the OP to refund amount of Rs.3,65,000/-. This notice came to be served on the OP. Subsequently, the complainant  filed the complaint with the Police against the OP. Later on the complainant got issued legal notice dt.28.06.2021 which came to be served on OP. In response to the this OP issued exhibit P-11 reply stating that the OP has already paid GST and the complainant is not entitled to refund.

10. Both the parties reiterated  respective contentions in their affidavits. Exhibit R1 is booking form, Exhibit R2 is bank statement which indicates that the OP has received Rs.1,77,000/- from the complainant including CGST and SGST of Rs.27,000/-. The OP has produced tax  assessment  and payment receipt under Exhibit R3. It is admitted by the complainant through P4- the government order dt.21.04.2020 allowing public to performing the marriage with maximum 50 people between 21.04.2021 to 04.05.2021. Both parties were aware of this circular. Accordingly the OP obtained permission dt.22.04.2021 for conducting marriage in the convention hall as per the government guidelines.  It is  case of the OP that OP had already paid SGST and CGST of Rs.27,000/-. This fact is proved from Exhibit R4. Therefore, the OP is right in deducting Rs.27,000/-.

11. It is relevant to note that the complainant was not ready to perform the marriage of his daughter  in the convention center of the OP with limited guests  of 50 only. The complainant could have performed the marriage in the convention center requesting OP to refund proportionate amount. Similarly, OP has also not refunded proportionate amount after deducting  SGST and CGST. It is the case of the complainant, subsequently he got performed marriage in his house. The complainant has not produced any evidence to this effect. Under such circumstance the complainant places reliance on the decision State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisson, Maharastra, Mumbai in the matter of M/s Contour Holiday Resorts V/s K.N.Bhuvanedranatha Kamath dt.07.03.2013. This decision is prior to COVID-19 effect. However, the order came to passed in favour of Ram Mangal Sanskrutik Bhavan to return of amount advanced by the complainant after deducting 15% and pay the balance with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization with cost of Rs.5,000/-. As per this decision the OP is entitled to retain 15% of Rs.3,65,000/- and SGSCT and CGST amount of Rs27,000/- liable to be refunded Rs.2,83,250/. Therefore, OP is liable to refund Rs.283,250/-.  Non-refund of amount amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant served legal notice  dt.28.06.2021 and called upon the OP to refund his amount. The non-refund of balance amount from 28.06.2021 amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore the complainant is entitled to interest at 9% p.a.  from 28.06.2021 till realization. When interest is awarded, the complainant is not entitled to compensation  amount separately. The complainant has engaged service of an advocate. Therefore, the cost of  litigation is quantify at Rs.5,000/-.

12. Point no.3:- In view of our findings    on point no.1 & 2, the complaint requires to be allowed in part. The OP is liable to refund Rs.2,83,250/- with interest at 9% from 28.06.2021 till realization. The OP is also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. The request of the complainant for compensation and damages is rejected.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP shall refund Rs.2,83,250/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 28.06.2021 till realization and pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation  to the complainant.
3. The OPs  shall comply this order within 60  days from this date, failing which the OP shall pay interest  at 10% after expiry of 60 days from this date till realization on Rs.2,83,250/-.

4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 7^th  day of July, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :