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

DATED 23^rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant seeks following reliefs by invoking provisions of C.P.Act, 2019 against the OP:-

(a) Direct the respondent to refund back the amount of Rs.22,500/- which he had paid.

(b) Direct the respondent to provide Rs.10,000/- as a compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and mental harassment and agony.

(c) Direct the respondent to pay the costs of litigation.

(d) and such other/further order/orders as your honour may be deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

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

The complainant had booked Kalyanmantap of OP for his son marriage to be held on 5^th April 2020 to 6^th April 2020 by paying Rs.1,47,500/- on 20.12.2019.  But, due to Covid-19 and restriction imposed by the Government, the complainant prepared to cancel the booking and requested for refund of Rs.1,47,500/-.

3. The OP has refunded only Rs.1,25,000/- on 21.08.2020 by transfer after deducting Rs.22,500/- towards CGST and SGST.  The complainant has not used the hall and he has not taken any service and question of deducting GST does not arise. Despite best efforts and legal notice dated 27.10.2020, the OP failed to refund the balance amount.  Hence, this complaint. 

4. After receipt of notice, the OP appears and files version. The OP contends that in case of cancellation of booking 150 days prior to the event, 10% shall be deducted from the booking charges and remaining amount shall be refunded.  In case, booking is cancelled within less than 150 days before the event, no refund and in case on the same date, Kalyanmantap booked by other persons, then 10% shall be deducted from the amount.  Only on 24.07.2020, the complainant had submitted application for cancellation of booking. Therefore, after deducting 18% cancellation charges, an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is refunded to the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service. OP request to dismiss the complaint. 

5. The complainant files his affidavit evidence and relies on four documents.  The OP has filed affidavit evidence of its authorized secretary and relies on four documents.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.  

7. The following points arise for our consideration:-

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

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

       Point No.1:  Affirmative in part

      Point No.2: Affirmative in part

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

9. Point Nos.1 and 2:  At the first instance, we would like to take admitted facts.  Even though, both the parties reiterated the respective contention in their affidavit evidence.  The documentary evidence produced by both the site is not in dispute.  It is borne out from the records that on 20.12.2019 the complainant had booked Kalyanmantap of the OP for marriage of his son to be held on 5^th and 6^th  2020 by paying Rs.1,47,500/-.  But, the complainant could not perform the marriage of his son due to Covid-19.  However, only on 24.07.2020 the complainant had submitted cancellation form.  According to this form also even in case of cancellation prior to 150 days, 10% shall be deducted out of booking charges, in case the Kalyanmantap is booked by other person.  It is admitted fact that number of events have been cancelled due to Covid-19 from April onwards.  Even though, OP contends that 18% is deducted from Rs.1,47,500/- towards CGST and SGST.  But, Op has not produced document to show that Rs.22,500/- has been deducted towards CGST and SGST and same has been remitted to the concerned Government. Even presuming for the sake of arguments that the Kalyanmantap  was not booked by any other person on 5^th and 6^th April, 2020, but complainant himself made a delay in submission of cancellation form.
10. The complainant despites the deduction of Rs.22,500/- towards CGST and SGST contends that the question of deduction of CGST and SGST does not arise as he has not availed any service of the OP, the question of deficiency of service does not arise.  However, the OP is also failed to produce document to show that it has remitted Rs.22,500/- to the Government towards CGST and SGST.  Under such circumstances, deduction of Rs.22,500/- is not correct.  If cancellation form is taken into consideration, the OP was entitled to deduct only 10% of Rs.1,47,500/-.  The OP instead of deducting Rs.14,750/- wrongly deducted Rs.22,500/-.  The deduction of amount in excess of Rs.14,750/- is not correct.  Therefore, OP is liable to refund Rs.7,750/- only.  The failure on the part of the OP to non-refund of balance amount of Rs.7,750/- after deducting 10% on Rs.1,47,500/- amounts to unfair trade practice.  Therefore, complainant is entitled to Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost.
11. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, complaint requires to be allowed in part.  OP is liable to refund Rs.7,750/- with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- 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.
2. The OP shall refund Rs.7,750/- with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from this date. 
3. Furnish the copy of this order and return the documents with extra pleadings to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 23^rd day of February, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP which are as follows:-