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

DATED 11^th DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant by invoking Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 (herein under referred as an Act) has filed the complaint for the following reliefs against the OPs:-

(a) Direct the OPs to refund the Security/advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

(b) Direct the OPs to pay a total compensation of Rs.1,24,000/-.

(c) cost of litigation

(d) Such other reliefs.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant having paid Rs.2,00,000/- an advance towards marriage hall to the OPs by cash booked marriage hall to perform marriage of his daughter to be held on 20^th and 21^st May, 2021.  The OP has issued receipt for having received the same.  The circular came to be issued in June 2020 putting prohibition performing marriage in Convention hall/Choultry/Kalyana Mantap due to pandemic.  The complainant requested the OPs to refund Rs.2,00,000/- as he was going to perform marriage of his daughter in the native place of bridegroom at Chitradurga on subsequent date. Even though, he lodged a complaint with the police, but OP failed to refund the money.  Even though, he made an endorsement and agreed to refund the amount.  The non-refund of amount amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, this complaint.

3. In response to the notice, OP No.2 appear and files version.  But, notice to OP No.1 not returned.  OP No.1 is the Sri New Venkatadri Kalayana Mantapa and OP No.2 is Proprietor of this institution. 

4. The OP No.2 admits receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- and booking of Kalyana Mantapa by the complainant.  But, the complainant was supposed to perform the marriage with only 100 guests.  The complainant got performed the marriage of his daughter without prior intimation on 10.05.2021.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.  The complainant is liable to pay balance amount of Rs.1,45,000/-.  OP No.2 requests to dismiss the complaint.

5. The complainant files affidavit evidence and relies on nine documents.  No evidence is adduced by the OP No.2.  Heard the advocate for complainant only.   

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

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

       Point Nos.1 and 2:  Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2:  These two points are co-related to each other.  Even though, OP No.2 contested the claim of the complainant, but OP No.2 has not lead any evidence. 
9. It is admitted and proved that the complainant booked a Kalyanamantapa of OP No.2 by paying Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as could be seen from Ex.P.1 and P.2.  Ex.P.3 indicates what are the facilities available in the above Kalyanamantapa.  The Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru District issued a circular dated 10.06.2020 requesting the owners of Kalyanamantapa to refund the money by deducting 5% tax.  This circular is issued at prior to booking the hall on 24.03.2021.  The complainant knowing this circular got booked Kalyanamantapa of OP No.2.
10. Later on, the complainant lodged police complaint as per Ex.P.5 on 11.05.2021 and police issued Ex.P.6 endorsement.  Ex.P.7 is the statement of Manager of OP No.1 indicates that he agreed to refund Rs.2,00,000/- by deducting 18% GST and 5% maintenance.  Even as per the circular of the Deputy Commissioner, OP No.2 was supposed to deduct only 5%. Despite Ex.P.8 legal notice, the OP No.2 failed to refund the amount.
11. It is relevant to note that on 16.04.2021 the Government issued a circular restricting guests of 100 only to be attended in the marriage functions.  But, complainant having knowledge of such circular, booked the Kalyanamantapa of OP No.2 on 24.03.2021 to perform marriage of his daughter on 20^th May and 21^st May, 2021.  The non-refund of balance amount amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.  But, complainant also booked the Kalyanamantapa knowing guest restriction.  Complainant got performed marriage of his daughter on 10.05.2021 without prior intimation to the OP No.2.  But, on 11.05.2021, he lodged a complaint with the police.  He refers Government Rules dated 08.05.2021.  It is true that on 07.05.2021, 09.05.2021  and 21.05.2021, the Government issued further circular.  Under such circumstances, the OP No.2 was liable to refund advance money after deducting 5% tax.  The non-refund of Rs.2,00,000/- minus 5% tax i.e. Rs.10,000/- = Rs.1,90,000/- amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.  The complainant is entitled to Rs.1,90,000/-.  The complainant claims interest, but there is no privity of contract with regard to payment of interest.  The complainant claims Rs.75,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses Rs.25,000/-.  It is true that the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was lying with the OP No.2.  But, OP No.2 also deprived rental income.  Moreover, the quantum of compensation, litigation expenses claimed by the complainant are excessive in nature.  Under such circumstances, Rs.5,000/- compensation and Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses are awarded as OP also deprived rental income and OP suffers financial crisis due to Covid
12. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, the complaint reqiores to be allowed in part against OP No.2 only who is proprietor of Kalyanamantapa.  Complaint against OP No.1 requests to be dismissed.  The OP No.2 is liable to refund Rs.1,90,000/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part against OP No.2.
2. The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed.
3. The OP No.2 shall refund Rs.1,90,000/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.
4. The OP No.2 shall comply this order within 45 days from this date.
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 11^th March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-