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

DATED 26^th DAY OF MAY 2022

ORDER

SRI.SHIVARAMA.K, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the OP to refund amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment of advance amount till the disposal of the case and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony sustained and such other reliefs, this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. It is not in dispute that the OP is a Kalyana Mantapa represented by its Manager.  Further, it is not in dispute that on 22.02.2021, the complainant had booked the OP Kalyana Mantapa for the marriage of his daughter on July 1^st, 2021.  Further, it is not in dispute that due to covied-19, circular issued by the Government of Karnataka, the marriage did not take place in the said Kalyana Mantapa on 01.07.2021.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- on 22.02.2021 and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 23.02.2021 as rentable to the booking of the Kalyana Mantapa.  Hence, in total the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- out of total rental amount of Rs.3,75,000/- and the marriage was scheduled to be held on 30.06.2021 and 01.07.2021.

3. It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant wanted to organize the marriage in the presence of around 700 to 1000 people and since the OP Kalyana Mantapa was suitable for that, the complainant had booked the same.  Further due to rise in Covid-19 cases in Karnataka, there was night curfew and weekend curfew and complete lockdown in Bangalore and Karnataka since 27^th April, 2021 and there was restrictions on people attending marriage to only 20 people and the marriages were allowed to be celebrated inside the marriage hall.  Further, there was permission for only 40 people to gather in the marriage and on July 1^st the marriages were not allowed to be celebrated inside the marriage halls.  Hence, the complainant was unable to make arrangements for his daughter’s marriage on the scheduled day at OP Kalyana Mantapa.  Hence, the complainant requested the OP for refund of the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. As per the requests of the OP, the complainant gave a letter dated 03.05.2021 for refund of the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.  In spite of number of visits being made by the complainant to the OP, the OP did not respond for refund of the amount.  Hence, the complainant had sent a legal notice through his advocate dated 26.11.2021 to the OP.  Inspite of the letter and notice been given for refund of the advance amount, the OP had not refunded the amount.  Hence, the complaint came to be filed.

4. The OP had denied the averments made in the complaint other than the admissions stated above. It is the further case of the OP that notification was issued by the Government of Karnataka on 15.04.2021 which gave permission to conduct marriages with the maximum limit of 100 persons in Kalyana Mantapa and 200 persons in open spaces of guests and it was intimated to the complainant and the complainant had agreed for the same.  Further, complainant had approached the OP prior to the scheduled date of the marriage stating that due to Covid lockdown, they would not be able to perform the marriage.  Hence, demanded the entire advance amount paid for the booking of the hall by the complainant.  Further, the complainant had handed over letter to the Manager, seeking cancellation. Further, upon nearing to the wedding date when the OP contacted regarding the arrangements, the phone calls and messages went unanswered and there was no reply from the side of the complainant.  Further, the complainant without giving prior intimation and not even asked for preponing or postponing the wedding and just conducted the wedding in their own house, causing lot of loss to the OP along with the rent of the Kalyana Mantapa a sum of additional Rs.1,75,000/- to the OP along with the rent of the Kalyana Mantapa being Rs.3,75,000/-.  Further, even though it was contended that the amount would not be refunded in case of cancellation to which the complainant had signed and agreed for the same.  The complainant had filed this complaint to harass the OP.  Further, the complainant himself is liable to pay Rs.1,75,000/- of rental amount to the OP for booking the Kalyana Mantapa.  Hence, the conduct of complainant is clearly a fraudulent behavior.  Hence, the OP sought to dismiss the complaint.

5. To prove the case of the complainant, he has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 documents.  The OP did not file affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties and the reliefs sought, the point that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

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

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

       Point No.1:-  In affirmative.

      Point No.2:- Partly in affirmative.   

      Point No.3:-As per final orders for the following

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2: In order to avoid the repetition of facts and as both the points are interlinked, both the points are taken together for discussion.  Complainant (P.W.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.  He has reiterated the fact stated in the complaint in the affidavit filed.  There is no dispute with regard to the booking of OP Kalyana Mantapa for the purpose of marriage of complainant’s daughter scheduled to be held on 30^th June 2021 and 1^st July 2021.  Further, it is not in dispute that out of the total rental amount of Rs.3,75,000/-, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.  To substantiate the payment made by the complainant, complainant had produced Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 receipts issued by the OP.  Ex.P.3 is the copy of the letter addressed to the OP dated 03.05.2021 seeking for the refund of the advance amount since due to Covid-19, the complainant was not able to perform the marriage at OP Kalyana Mantapa.  Ex.P.4 is the copy of the legal notice addressed to OP.  In the legal notice, it is sought for refund of the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The said notice was served on OP vide Ex.P.5 postal acknowledgement.  Ex.P.6 is the postal receipt for having sent the notice by RPAD.  Ex.P.8 is the certificate under Section 65(B) Indian Evidence Act.
9. It is the contention of the OP as averred in the version filed under Section 38(3)(A) of C.P.Act, 2019 that a notification was issued by Karnataka Government dated 16.04.2021 permitting to conduct marriage with a maximum limit of 100 persons in Kalyana Mantapa and 200 persons in open space.  The OP had produced the Xerox copy of the said notification.  As per the notification, the restrictions stated in the circular dated 23.03.2021 was continued till 30.04.2021 and the marriages were permitted in the presence of only not more than 200 people in the open space and 100 people in the choultry hall.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that due to the notification dated 19.06.2021 issued by the Government of Karnataka, the complainant was not able to perform the marriage in the OP Kalyana Mantapa.  In support of the contention, the counsel for the complainant has relied Ex.P.7 xerox copy of the circular issued by Government of Karnataka dated 19.06.2021. As per the notification, the Covid-19 guidelines was in force from 21.06.2021 till 05.07.2021. As per the guidelines, there was night curfew during the said period from 7PM to 5 AM and weekend curfew from Friday 7 PM to Monday 5 AM.  Marriages already scheduled were permitted to be conducted at their respective home in a low key manner involving only close family relatives upto 50 people and strictly adhering to Covid-19 appropriate behavior and guidelines issued by State Government. Since the complainant’s daughter marriage was scheduled to be held on 30^th June 2021 and 1^st July 2021 and in view of the circular, the complainant was not able to perform the marriage at the OP marriage hall.
10. Since the OP is a Kalyana Mantapa and offered services accommodating for the marriage and the complainant had booked the OP Kalyana Mantapa for his daughter’s marriage, thereby, the OP had agreed to give service to the complainant on consideration, we feel the complainant is a Consumer under Section 2(7)(ii) of C.P.Act, 2019.
11. It is the further contention of the OP as averred in the version that the complainant had handed over the letter to the Manager of the OP seeking cancellation, even though Manager has no legal stand to issue any statement regarding refund of the amount as he was only an employee in the OP Kalyana Mantapa.  Further, after conducting the complainant’s daughter marriage, the complainant got issued the legal notice dated 26.07.2021 for the refund of the advance rental amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.  Further, the complainant without taking into consideration, the plight of the OP in taking the huge risk and preparation work of the OP in order to perform the complainant’s daughter wedding arrangements, the complainant with his influence has harassed the OP.  Even though, there is a clear contention that amount would not be refunded in case of cancellation, to which the complainant had signed and agreed for the same.  We feel, since the OP did not produce any document that the advance amount cannot be refunded in case of cancellation, there is no merit in the said contention. Hence, even though the complainant did not avail the service of the OP, without any reason, the OP did not return the advance amount.  Thereby, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP as contemplated under Section 2(11) of C.P.Act, 2019.
12. As per the notification issued by Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru dated 10.06.2020 in No.ACT(1)/CR/2019-20 it was directed to the owners of the Kalyana Mantapa/Marriage hall to return the advance rent taken by deducting 5% tax to the persons who had booked the Kalyana Manatapa/Marriage hall.  In the light of the circular, the OP is entitled to retain 5% of the advance amount.  The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for refund.  Admittedly, the complainant had paid the same to the OP.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- by deducting  5% tax in the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. 
13. Further, complainant claimed interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of payment of advance amount.  We feel, since at the time of payment of advance, there was no restrictions to perform the marriage at Kalayana Mantapa/marriage hall and upto the date of marriage, there was speculation, the complainant is entitled for interest after the marriage of complainant’s daughter i.e. from the date of complaint.  Further, the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. claimed by the complainant is highly exorbitant and 9% p.a. interest would suffice the claim of the complainant and we have to see the condition of the OP also.  Further, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation costs and mental trauma sustained.  We feel, since Covid-19 was unforeseen incident took place, the complainant is entitled only for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs and mental trauma sustained. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.
14. Point No.3:- In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- after deducting 5% tax in the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization and sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation and mental trauma sustained.
3. The OP shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order.
4. In the event of OP fails to pay the said amount of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days from date of order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.
5. 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 26^th day of May, 2022)

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

Document produced by the opposite party are as follows: