Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/37/2015

Ramsahimal Sahvwala and Sons Charitable Trust - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mukesh Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Anita Sumanth

21 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

                                        Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

                                                     Thiru. S.KARUPPIAH                     ... MEMBER

 

F.A. No.37 of 2015

 

(Against the Order, dated 06.11.2014, passed in CC No.155/13,

on the file of  the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

                                                    

                                                                      Orders pronounced on:   21.03.2022

 

1.M/s.Ramsahaimal Sahuwala & Sons

             Charitable Trust,

rep. by its Managing Trustee,

No.24, Cathedral Garden Road,

Chennai 600 034.

 

2. M/s.Ramsahaimal Sahuwala & Sons

             Charitable Trust,

rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

Royal Palms, SF 149, Off Mettupalayam Road,

Behind Lotus Agency,

Coimbatore 641 043.            … Appellants / OPs

 

vs.

 

Mukesh Jain,

S/o.Jaswanth Kumar Jain,

46, Edayar Street,

Coimbatore.                             … Respondent/ Complainant

 

             For Appellants                 : M/s.G.Baskar

             For Respondent       : No appearance              

 

     This Appeal is coming before us for final hearing today and, after hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material records, this Commission passes the following:-      

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.     -    (Open Court)

 

               This First Appeal is filed against the impugned order, dated 06.11.2014, passed by the DCDRF, Coimbatore, in C.C. No.155 of 2013, whereby, the District Forum partly  allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein and directed the Opposite Parties/appellants herein to refund a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the total advance received by the OPs from the complainant, while booking the Marriage Hall.

 

             2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the course of this Order, as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

             In brief, the case of the complainant, as averred in the complaint filed before the District Forum, is as follows:

             On 18.02.2012, the complainant had approached the 2^nd OP and booked the Marriage Hall owned by the 1^st OP, for the marriage scheduled on 12.06.2012.   He had also paid under receipt a sum of Rs.54,120/- towards utilization of the Marriage Hall on the said date between 6 AM. and 6 PM.  While so, due to some untoward and unavoidable incidents, the complainant had to cancel the booking of the Marriage Hall and, before one month prior to the marriage date, he duly informed the same to the 2^nd OP and requested him to return the advance paid by him, after deducting the service charges/tax, etc. Even after such intimation to the OPs well in advance and the repeated requests for refund, the OPs did not come forward to return the sum, hence, the complainant was constrained to send a legal notice, dated 29.10.2012, for which, they sent a false reply and also, declined to pay back the advance.  Hence, he filed the complaint, seeking the District Forum to direct the OPs to settle his claim of Rs.54,120/- and to pay Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony/compensation, besides Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

 

             3.  Per contra, in the written version of the OPs, among other things, it is stated as follows:-

             It is true that the booking was done on payment of Rs.54,120, but, it was not the amount deposited towards utilization of the Marriage Hall as claimed by the complainant, rather, it was paid as the rent-in-advance, caution deposit and service tax and the said sum can be forfeited on breach of the rules and regulations, namely, cancellation of the Hall, that too, belatedly.  The cancellation was informed only one month before the date of marriage and it would go to show that the OPs would have received several queries for booking during the interregnum period at least between 01.03.2012 and middle of May, 2012.  Since the first regulation of the OPs is quite specific that, in the event of cancellation for any reason whatsoever, no refund would be available, the complainant, having agreed to the same, is legally estopped from claiming refund of the rental charges viz., Rs.40,000/-, however, he is entitled to get back the caution deposit of Rs.10,000/- alone.  Further, a sum of Rs.4,120/- collected from the complainant towards service tax at the rate of 12.36% on Rs.40,000/- was already remitted to the Central Excise Department on 03.03.2012 and hence, it could not paid.  In fact, the OPs offered to refund the caution deposit of Rs.10,000/-, however, the complainant refused there-for and insists to refund the total sum of Rs.54,120/- that included the service tax already paid by the OP.  At any rate, the dispute between the parties being contractual and thus litigable only before civil court, the present complaint cannot be maintained and hence, the same may have to be dismissed.

 

              4.  To substantiate the claim and counter-claim, both sides filed their respective proof affidavits.  While the complainant marked 5 documents as Exs.A1 to A5, on the side of the OPs, 7 documents came to be marked as Exs.B1 to B7.  The District Forum, after analysing the materials available on record, while holding that, since the complainant did not use the Marriage Hall and thus, did not avail the services of the OPs, he is entitled for refund of the advance amount, equally observed that, at the same time, since the cancellation was done just one month prior to the scheduled date, the OPs would not have been in a position to rent out the Marriage Hall for any other function, thus, they would have also suffered loss to certain extent; and accordingly, directed the OPs only to refund a sum of Rs.30,000/- out of Rs.54,120/- that was paid by the complainant.  Aggrieved thereby, the OPs have come up with this Appeal.

 

               5. The prime submission of the learned counsel for the OPs is that the Marriage Hall is run by the Charitable Trust, which has no profit basis; while so, the finding of the District Forum as if the Trust has commercial motive in renting out the Marriage Hall and also the approach to apply humanitarian consideration are wholly untenable.  Having come to the conclusion that, because of the cancellation, the OPs too would have suffered loss, the District Forum ought not have directed the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.30,000/-.  As such, the impugned order cannot be legally sustained and hence, the same is liable to be set aside, he pleaded.

 

             6. Since there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, we have perused the written submissions filed on his behalf.

 

             7. The only issue that needs to be considered in this appeal is as to whether any interference is called for with the impugned order, whereby, the District Forum balanced the interest of both the parties equally by ordering only partial refund keeping in consideration the fact that the OPs would not have received any booking on the cancelled date?

 

             8. No doubt, the complainant had cancelled the booking one month prior to the scheduled date, but, the admitted fact that he never utilized the Marriage Hall so also the services of the OPs cannot be slightly ignored while examining the claim for refund.  While so, by citing a regulation that, in the event of cancellation for any reason whatsoever, no refund would be made, the OPs cannot be allowed to succeed, since such regulation is clearly against public policy and the same cannot be legally insisted upon.  On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the District Forum, after taking note of the point that the OPs would have also suffered loss to certain extent over non-booking of the Marriage Hall on the cancelled date, ordered only partial refund of Rs.30,000/-, by exhibiting a balanced approach.  Since we find that the impugned order is based on the principles of equity, there is hardly any scope for interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it stands dismissed.

 

             9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, as devoid of any merit.

 

S.KARUPIAH                                                         R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT.