Date of Filing 18.12.2019

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 26.03.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                          …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                                ……MEMBER-I

               THIUR.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, (ICWA), BL.,                                                                     ……MEMBER-II

RBT/CC.No.50/2024

THIS TUESDAY, THE 26^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

Mr.P.Giridari,

S/o.S.Parthasarathy,

Flat No.608, Tulive Horizon Residences,

No.16/1, Arunachalam Road,

Saligramam, Chennai 600 093.                                                            ......Complainant.

                                                                                   //Vs//

1.M/s.Ayswariya Mahal,

    New No.151, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,

    100 Feet Road,

    MMDA, Chennai 600 106.

2.Mr.George Joseph Wilson,

    Managing Director M/s.Ayswariya Mahal,

    New No.151, Jawaharlal Nehru Road

    100 Feet Road,

    MMDA, Chennai 600 106.

3.Mr.Anson, Manager, M/s.Ayswariya Mahal,

    New No.151, Jawaharlal Nehru Road

    100 Feet Road,

    MMDA, Chennai 600 106.                                                           ……Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                    : M/s.R.Muniyapparaj, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                               : M/s.K.Ganesan, Advocate.

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.23/2020 and transferred to this commission by the administrative order in RC.No.J1/3145/2023 dated 09.11.2023 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as RBT/CC.No.50/2024 and this complaint coming before us finally on 12.03.2024 in the presence of M/s.R.Muniyapparaj, counsel for the complainant  and M/s.K.Ganesan, counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in not refunding the booking amount for the marriage hall along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the hardship and mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation expenses.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It was the case of the complainant that he was one of the partners of M/s.Manju Lakshmi Associates, a distribution company in Chennai City who approached the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party on 01.12.2017 for booking M/s.Ayswariya Mahal for 03.04.2018 & 04.04.2018 for the marriage of his own sister namely Ms.Manjubascini.  After verification of the dates available in the schedule, the 3^rd opposite party had made the booking for the same dates. After that the rental amount was fixed at Rs.6,15,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs.2,95,000/- by way of cheque on 20.12.2017 and the balance Rs.3,20,000/- by way of cash on 27.12.2017. Since the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party compelled the complainant through the 3^rd opposite party to pay the total amount in advance, the complainant paid not only the two days tariff of Rs.6,15,000/- in 4 months advance but also the caution deposit amount of Rs.1,75,000/- well in advance before the marriage function. Due to unavoidable and unexpected circumstances the marriage got cancelled after completing the entire marriage arrangements for Catering, Dress, Accommodation, Music troop, Marriage hall decorations, Jewellery, Gift articles and circulating invitations to friends and relatives etc.  It was immediately informed to the 3^rd opposite party on 02.04.2018 and 2^nd opposite party through the 3^rd opposite party on the same day.  The complainant received refund of caution deposit amount of Rs.1,75,000/- almost 7 months after the booking date. Finally on 03.03.2019 the 3^rd opposite party has told that due to the terms and conditions set by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties for running the business of Kalyana Mandapam, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party could not return the advance full amount, received 4 months in advance to the marriage date. The opposite parties in their reply notice had stated that they received a payment of only Rs.2,95,000/- and that too for “one day” marriage function.  Whereas the total payment made by the complainant was Rs.6,15,000/- for two days function paid in two instalments Rs.2,95,000/- as cheque on 20.12.2017 and Rs.3,20,000/- as cash on 27.12.2017. The opposite parties collecting cash of Rs.3,20,000/- from the complainant without issuing any invoice was an unfair trade practice as per section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Also the opposite parties have published a “Tariff Sheet” displaying the price for the services. But collects payments more than the Tariff Sheet and only partially disclosing the payment was an unfair trade practice as per section 2(r)(ix) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Both the opposite parties had not disclosed the “terms” to the complainant. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the hardship and mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-

3. The opposite parties filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complainant was not a consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the alleged booking was done by M/s.Manju Lakshmi Associates represented by one P.Manjubascini and the present complainant, who was a complete stranger could not maintain a complaint in his individual name. The application dated 20.12.2017 for booking of the kalyana mandapan on rent signed and submitted by the applicant representing M/s.Manju Lakshmi Associate, has categorically stated and agreed that the booking charges once made will not be refunded under any circumstances.  The terms and conditions of the application for booking of the Kalyana Mandapam are valid and binding on the applicant.  The applicant unilaterally cancelled the booking of the kalyana Mandapam on 03.04.2018 evening orally at the last moment, just a day before the marriage after taking complete control over the kalyana mandapam by deploying all personnel like caterers, decorators and other event marriage teams for conducting the marriage. Neither the complainant nor the applicant or any other person representing the applicant not entitled for the refund of advance amount as per the terms and conditions contained in the application for booking of Kalyana Mandapam on rent. Opposite parties had done the booking on receipt of Rs.2,95,000/- only as paid by the applicant M/s/Manju Lakshmi Associates represented by one Manjubascini through cheque dated 20.12.2017. Opposite parties depend heavily on the confirmed bookings done for any particular day as there would be no other customer to take the Kalyana Mandapam on rent especially when the duration between the booking the marriage becomes shorter.  There would be practically none to take the Kalyana Mandapam on rent even a few days before the marriage as the preparations for the performance of the marriage are long drawn and the booking of the kalyana mandapam happens several months before the actual function.  Therefore it was a prudent practice and a necessary condition that any cancellation would not entitle the applicant for refund of any amount whatsoever.  Complainant has not produced any material evidence to prove that he was one of the partners of M/s.Manju lakshmi Associates, in whose name the booking of the kalyana mandapam was done by one Ms.Manjubascini representing the said firm. Caution deposit applicable for one day’s hiring of the kalayana mandapam was Rs.75,000/- and the same was collected from the applicant and refunded vide Cheque No.918588 dated 10.09.2018.  The opposite parties were not informed about the cancellation of the marriage as alleged and the kalyana Mandapam was taken over on 03.04.2018 by the applicant who made the booking and the marriage hall decorations were carried out and welcome arch in the names of the S.Parthasarathy & S.Soundara Rajan families was erected during the second half of 03.04.2018 itself.  The names of the bride and the bridegroom were also displayed at the entrance of the kalyana Mandapam.  The marriage got cancelled after completing the entire process of marriage including the arrangement/payments for catering/food, Dress, Accommodation and marriage hall decorations as admitted by the complainant.  The information about the cancellation of the marriage was passed on to the opposite parties only during the evening hours of 03.04.2018 much after taking over of the kalyana Mandapam for decoration and making other arrangements. Booking was cancelled at the last hour without any prior notice and the opposite parties were sympathetic enough to offer the kalyana mandapam for an extended period till 31^st march 2019 in order to accommodate the parties to explore any possibility of conducting the marriage function on any date available and convenient for the applicant.  But the applicant did not utilise the extended period and insisted for refund of the caution deposit. The allegation that the copy of the terms and conditions was not handed over was ridiculous and opposite parties not coerced the applicant to enter into an unfair contract. The first item of the terms and conditions, “booking charges once made will not be refunded under any circumstances” printed on the reverse of the application for booking is a just and necessary condition in view of the impossibility of the commercial exploitation of the kalyana mandapam in case of last-minute cancellation of the booking. Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex 15 were submitted. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were submitted. 

Points for consideration:-

1)    Whether the act of opposite parties in not refunding the Advance booking amount made by the complainant even after cancellation of the event amounts to deficiency in service?

2)    If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

 Point No.1:-

5. The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that he booked the opposite party’s marriage hall for his sister’s marriage to be held on 03.04.2018 & 04.04.2018.  However, due to some unforeseen circumstances the marriage got cancelled which was intimated to the opposite parties on 02.04.2018.  It is the further case of the complainant that he had paid Rs.6,15,000/- towards booking the marriage hall, out of which Rs.2,95,000/- was paid by way of cheque and the balance amount of Rs.3,20,000/- by way of cash.  As the marriage was cancelled the complainant sought for the refund of the amount paid by him as he had not utilized the services of the opposite parties.  Thus it is contended by him that the opposite parties not refunding the amount had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

6. On the other hand, the opposite parties argued that the cancellation was done after all arrangements were made by them for the marriage function. Further they also disputed the locus standi of the complainant to file the present complaint as the receipts were issued in the name of one M/s. Manju Lakshmi Associates and hence it was argued that the complainant could not in his individual capacity file the present complaint.  The learned counsel cited the terms and conditions found in the receipt that booking charges once made will not be refunded under any circumstances and the only option is to change the dates subject to availability.  Thus stating that the complainant is not entitled for any amount they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

7. On appreciation of the entire pleadings and material evidences submitted by both parties before this commission we could found that the factum of booking the marriage hall was not disputed.  However the issue to be decided in the present complaint is whether the complainant has the locus standi to file the complaint, what was the exact amount paid to the opposite parties towards booking and whether the opposite parties has the obligation for making any refund on account of cancellation of the event and if so what is the quantum.

Locus standi to file the complaint:-

8. It is not in dispute that the opposite parties issued a receipt in the name of one M/s. Manju Lakshmi Associates for the payment made for booking hall for marriage reception.  However, it was well established that the present complainant was none other than the brother of the bride whose marriage was supposed to be held in the opposite parties’ premises vide Ex.A1. Therefore the complainant who is none other than a close relative to the person in whose name the receipt was issued and when as per the Consumer Protection Act 2019, he being a beneficiary could very well maintain the complaint before this commission.  There is no dispute that except the complainant any other person has claimed refund of the amount.  In such scenario the complaint filed by the present complainant could not be dismissed at the threshold holding that he was not a competent person to file the complaint.

Amount paid:-

9. Vide Ex.A2 payment of Rs.2,95,000/- by the complainant was clearly established which aspect was not denied by the opposite parties.  However, it is case of the complainant that only at the compulsion of the opposite parties they made the balance amount of Rs.3,20,000/- in cash for which no invoice was issued.  He also stated that at the backside of the receipt (Ex.A2) there is a reference for the receipt of Rs.3,20,000/- received as cash.  Though a reference was seen it does not contains any signature.  However, in the front page the signature of the Manager Mr.Anson was found.  Therefore a simple reference in handwriting could not be considered as an evidence for the payment of the amount. Therefore, this commission holds that as per the documentary evidence available only an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- was received by the opposite parties towards the booking of the marriage hall.

Intimation about the cancellation:-

10. The “time of intimation” is very much important in this particular case as even as per the version of the complainant for the marriage to be held on 03.04.2018 and 04.04.2018, the cancellation was intimated on 02.04.2018.  Therefore, it is well seen that only a day before the marriage, the cancellation was intimated to the opposite parties.  We came across an order passed by this same commission in CC.No.38/2017 dated 31.01.2019 wherein in a similar set of facts of the case, the entire amount as found in the receipt was ordered to be refunded to the complainant.  However, we could not apply the same Principle to the present case as in that case the cancellation of function was intimated very well in advance i.e. on 01.02.2017 for the marriage to be held on 10.06.2017.  But, in the present case the cancellation was intimated only at the last moment to the opposite parties so that they could not accept any fresh booking from any other party on that particular date.  Thus while deciding the liability of opposite parties to refund the booking amount the time of intimation about the cancellation assumes significance.

Liability of the opposite parties to refund:-

11. As in the aforesaid discussions we have held that the intimation by the complainant about the cancellation was made only at the last moment to the opposite parties, the chances of the opposite parties to have booking from another party had been completely washed out.  At the same time, though it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that they had made all arrangements for the function when the intimation was given to them, the same also could not be accepted in entirety as, as per Ex.B10 photographs it is seen that only minor arrangements on the entrance was made on account of marriage function.  Thus while deciding the liability of the opposite parties to make the refund of the amount necessarily the damage caused to them also has to be taken into account.  As the function as planed was not held in the premises of the opposite parties no damage could have been caused to the opposite parties due to non utilization of the premises.  Therefore, as no function was held they are liable to refund the booking amount received by them.  At this juncture, the time of intimation about the cancellation has to be taken into account as the monetary damage has been caused to them due to no bookings on that particular date. Thus, the opposite parties though liable to repay the booking amount but only after deduction of certain charges.  However, not refunding the entire amount by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

12. Though it is contended by the complainant that they had paid around Rs.6,15,000/- the documentary evidence submitted by them proves only payment of Rs.2,95,000/-.  Considering all the above factors this commission holds that after deducting 50% of the amount the opposite parties should be held liable to refund the balance amount to the complainant which would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances.

13. It is argued by the counsel for the opposite parties that as per the terms and conditions they are not liable for refund of any amount under any circumstances.  However we could found that the said terms and conditions was heavily loaded in favour of the opposite parties and the same amounts to unfair trade practice. Thus the said argument has to be rejected.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant that they are entitled for refund of 50% of the amount paid by them.

Point No.2:-

14. As we have held above that the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service we direct them to refund a sum of Rs.1,47,500/-to the complainant. For causing mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant we award Rs.25,000/- towards compensation along with Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally directing them

a) To refund a sum of Rs.1,47,500/- (Rupees one lakh forty seven thousand and five hundred only) within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

 c) To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;

d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 26^th day of March 2024.

      -Sd-                                                 -Sd-                                                            -Sd-                                                                                                         

MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

     -Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                                     -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER-I                                      PRESIDENT