Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

159/2013

M.Manimaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.New woodlands Pvt Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.Appakutty

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

   Date of Filing :   09.05.2013

                                                                      Date of Order :   11.08.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                

C.C.NO.159/2013

THURSDAY THIS  11^TH  DAY OF AUGUST 2016

 

M. Manimaran,

S/o. R. Mari,

FF Block 9,

Jains Kences Retreat,

Virugambakkam,

Chennai – 92.                                                            ..Complainant

 

                                         ..Vs..

 

M/s. New Woodlands Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by The Managing Director,

Dr.Radha Krishnan Salai,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                  ..Opposite party    

 

 

For the Complainant        :   M/s. V.Appakutty & others          

For the opposite party     :   M/s. K. Harishankar & others       

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest and  also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and to pay the cost of the complaint. 

ORDER

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

 

The complainant submit that he was the retired Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax Department, during January 2013 had booked marriage hall at the opposite party hotel in order to conduct the marriage of his son on 8^th of March 2013.     Accordingly the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as advance for the marriage hall and services to the opposite party.  The opposite party has also issued a  receipt  which contains the printed  terms and conditions on the rear side.  The complainant further submit that he had cancelled the said booking of the marriage hall due to certain unavoidable circumstances and informed the same to the opposite party on 25.01.2013 and demanded the refund of the advance amount.   Whereas the opposite party have  informed the complainant that as per the terms and conditions the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount, however as per the decision taken by the board members of the opposite party firm as a gesture of good will, opposite party agreed to refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- only.  Since, the cancellation was made within a week from the date of booking which was made for the marriage going to be held on 08.03.2013, the opposite party is liable to return the said advance  amount contrary to this, the refusal of the opposite party to refund the entire amount and saying on gesture of good will a sum of Rs.35,000/- alone can be refundable are not proper as such, the act of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  As such the complainant has sought for refund of a sum Rs.1,40,000/- with interest and  also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and to pay the cost of the complaint.      Hence the complaint.    

Written Version of opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

2.     The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party submit that the complainant had booked halls 1,2 and between 5 am and 10 p.m. for the 8^th of March 2013 to conduct the wedding of the complainant’s son.  At the time of booking the hall on 17.1.2013 the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of booing the hall and signed the same is acknowledged of his acceptance of the said terms.  As per the terms and conditions the complainant had paid the hall service charges amounting to Rs.1,40,000/- plus applicable taxes by issuing a cheque in favour of the opposite party.  The payment was made entirely as per the terms and conditions of the contract and it is denied that there was any insistence by the representatives of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.   Without a confirmed booking with complete payment, no hall booking is made and this is the terms  of the contract between the parties.   The opposite party further submit that the complainant has suppressed to mention the terms and conditions of the contract relating to cancellation of booking which he acknowledged and singed before making the payment.   It had been categorically agreed between the parties that “hall charges and advance paid for other services like food cost, nadhaswaram, mike, electrical illumination etc. will not be refunded.   This was agreed upon between the parties acknowledging the fact that due to cancellation, the loss to the opposite party had to be compensated and therefore as per the terms of the contract the amount paid will not be refunded.      As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and Ex.B1  to Ex.B3 filed on  the side of the  opposite party.  

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

 

1.   Whether the opposite party  has committed  deficiency of

 service  as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.   Whether the complainant is  entitled for the relief sought for

in the complaint?  If so to what extent ?

 

 

5.    POINTS 1 and 2 :

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the opposite party and the proof affidavit filed by both sides  documents Ex.A1 to A3 filed on the side of the complainant, the Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 filed on the side of opposite party and considered the both side arguments.

6.     There is no dispute that the complainant was the retired Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax Department, during January 2013 had booked marriage hall at the opposite party hotel in order to conduct the marriage of his son on 8^th of March 2013.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as advance for the marriage hall and services to the opposite party.  The opposite party has also issued a receipt Ex.B1  which contains the printed  terms and conditions on the rear side.  The complainant had cancelled the said booking of the marriage hall due to certain unavoidable circumstances and informed the same to the opposite party on 25.01.2013 and demanded the refund of the advance amount.  Whereas the opposite party have  informed the complainant that as per the terms and conditions the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount, however as per the decision taken by the board members of the opposite party  firm as a gesture of good will, opposite party agreed to refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- only.  The exchange of notice between the parties Ex.A2 = Ex.B2, and Ex.B3 are filed herewith in proof of the same. 

7.     Whereas the complainant’s grievance is that, since, the cancellation was made within a week from the date of booking which was made for the marriage going to be held on  08.03.2013, the opposite party is liable to return the said advance  amount contrary to this, the refusal of the opposite party to refund the entire amount and saying on gesture of good will a sum of Rs.35,000/- alone can be refundable are not proper as such, the act of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency of service and complainant has filed this complaint claiming the refund of the amount with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the opposite party.

8.     Whereas the opposite party has  resisted the complaint by saying that the receipt Ex.B1 itself contains terms and conditions, and agreeing the same complainant has made booking of  marriage hall with service for the marriage function, as such the complainant is not entitled for the refund of any amount on the event of cancellation, however on gesture of good will considering the complainant being the retired Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax Department, the opposite party has agreed to refund a sum of Rs.35,000/-, despite of the same the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and  liable to be dismissed.

9.     On perusal of the receipt Ex.B1 and the terms and conditions attached thereon.   There were several printed terms and conditions  under which both the parties i.e the Manager of the opposite party and the complainant have signed, out of which under the head of “cancellation of parties”  the following are mentioned

       “ a)Cancellation of party orders at any duration entail forfeiture of entire advance paid.

 

           b) “Wedding, Functions, Receptions and Meeting:  For cancellations Hall charges and advance paid for other services like Food cost, Nadhaswaram, Mike, Electrical Illuminations etc., will not be refunded.

          c) Only one postponement (or) preponement of function date allowed, subject to availability of the Hall on such dates.”

10.      The opposite party relying upon  above said terms and conditions mentioned in clause  (b) of the  cancellation of parties, contended that the all charges and  advance paid for other services like Food cost, Nadhaswaram, Mike, Electrical Illuminations will not be refunded accordingly, deducting the said amount, the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the complainant towards the advance for hall service charges cannot be refundable, as such the complainant is not entitled for refund of the said amount on the cancellation.  Further the opposite party has contended that the cancellation was made within one month of short duration, the opposite party cannot found any other party to engage the hall, as such the refund asked by the complainant cannot be sustainable.  However on perusal of the receipt Ex.B1 there is no mentioning about the detailed break up particulars of charges of advances made towards hall,  Food cost, Nadhaswaram, Mike, Electrical Illuminations etc., and further there is no evidence produced on the side of opposite party for the above mentioned services, the advance were paid by the opposite party for the said proposed programme.  Further it is also pertinent to mention that even in the Ex.B1 though it is mentioned “MENU” no detail of menu were mentioned or charted out.  Therefore we are of the considered view that though there are terms and conditions  agreed by the parties  as mentioned in the condition, since there is no evidence on the side of opposite party advances for the services like Food cost, Nadhaswaram, Mike, Electrical Illuminations etc.,  refusing to refund the amount of advance paid by the complainant on the event of cancellation of the said booking is not found to be reasonable.  Further the cancellation of booking was made by the complainant within one week from the date of booking. 
11.      Further considering the date of cancellation i.e 25.01.2013  is of the proposed programme of marriage to be held on 08.03.2013 is considered to be at the earliest point of time and it cannot be said that the opposite party has no sufficient time  to engage other parties to avail the said  cancelled date for booking.  Therefore the opposite party’s contention that they may face loss for the cancellation of booking of the hall is also not acceptable in this particular facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore the refusal by the opposite party for the refund of the advance amount paid for the booking of the hall and services  is not on valid and not justifiable.  However considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the opposite party after deducting a sum of Rs.10,000/- as administrative  charges would have returned the balance amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant.  Contrary to this the opposite party’s contention that they can only refund  a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant on the gesture of good will is not fair on their part, as such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service as contended by the complainant is acceptable.    Therefore the opposite party is to return the said amount with reasonable interest is justifiable but the complainant is not entitled for any compensation sought for in the complaint against the opposite party.

12.       As discussed above, we are of the considered view that the opposite party  is liable to refund a sum  of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of the complaint i.e 09.05.2013 to till the date payment and the opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation charges.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant compensation sought for by the complainant.  Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.

       In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One lakh and thirty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint i.e 09.05.2013 to till the date of payment, and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)  as cost to the complainant,  within six weeks from the date of this order. 

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  11^th   day  of  August   2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                     PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-                    -        - Copy of Statement of account issued by the complainant’s bank.

Ex.A2- 5.4.2013        - Copy of Legal notice by complainant to opposite party.

Ex.A3- 12.4.2013      - Copy of Ack. card received from opposite party.

 

 

 

Opposite party’s side documents: - 

 

 

Ex.B1- 17.1.2013      - Copy of receipt along with Terms and conditions

Ex.B2- 5.4.2013        - Copy of Legal notice sent by the complainant.

Ex.B3- 24.4.2013      - Copy of reply notice of the opposite party.

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                  PRESIDENT.