Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/128/2014

N.Ganesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sringeri Jagadguru Sanathana Dharma Vidya Samithi - Opp.Party(s)

party in person

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 11.03.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 07.03.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

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

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.128/2014

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 07^TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

                               

N. Ganesan,

No.14-F3, Jains Abilash, 1^st Main Road,

United India Colony,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                       .. Complainant.                                                        

..Versus..

The Manager,

Sringeri Jagadguru Sanathana Dharma Vidya Samithi (regd.),

(Sri Sringeri Jagadguru Pravachana Mandiram),

No.23, Sringeri Mutt Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

          

For the complainant                  :  Party in person

 

Counsel for the Opposite party :  M/s. S. Muthu Venkatraman &  

                                                      another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards punitive compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he booked a marriage hall of the opposite party on 19.03.2013 for the marriage function for 2 days dated:01.05.2013 & 02.05.2013 and paid a sum of Rs.2,80,900/- vide receipt No.4258 dated:19.03.2013.  The complainant submits that on 21.03.2013, due to unavoidable circumstances, the marriage was changed and postponed to on 11.05.2013 to 12.05.2013 which was accepted by the opposite party and adjusted the amount paid towards booking.  The complainant submits that on 03.04.2013, the complainant issued a letter in requesting the opposite party for cancellation of booking and refund of the amount paid towards booking for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:04.04.2013 but has not refunded the amount.  The complainant submits that on 26.11.2013, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party requesting to refund the amount for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:02.12.2013 and sent a cheque for a sum of Rs.56,180/- only. The opposite party has not paid the balance amount of Rs.2,24,720/- paid towards charges of rent for buildings, Hire charges for furniture, vessels, carpets, motor, grinder and fans for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Service Tax at the rate of 12.36% for a sum of Rs.30,900/-.   Hence, the complainant sent a letter dated:02.01.2014 through the Citizen Consumer and civic Action Group, Chennai for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:21.01.2014.   The complainant submits that in reply notice dated:21.01.2014, the opposite party stated that after booking the marriage hall by the complainant, the said hall was kept vacant and not come forward to refund the amount.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that the complainant booked the marriage hall for function dated:01.05.2013 and 02.05.2013 and subsequently changed to 11.05.2013 & 12.05.2013. Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter dated:03.04.2013 informing the opposite party that the marriage was postponed indefinitely and requested for cancellation of booking and refund of the amount paid towards the marriage hall.  As per clause 3 of the rules are regulations which reads as follows:

“No refund of money will be made in case of cancellation except the deposit amount.  The applicant however will have the option to re-book the mandapam free of charges only once for his use on any subsequent day / days according to his / her choice within two months from the date of cancellation subject to its availability.  The use of the Mandapam cannot be transferred by the applicant to any other person”.

Based on the above mentioned clause, the complainant is not entitled to any refund other than the deposit amount.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 are marked on the side of the opposite party. 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, hardship etc with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments. Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  Admittedly, the complainant  booked a marriage hall of the opposite party on 19.03.2013 for the marriage function dated:01.05.2013 & 02.05.2013 and paid a sum of Rs.2,80,900/- as per Ex.A1.   Further the contention of the complainant is that on 21.03.2013, due to unavoidable circumstances, the marriage was changed and postponed to on 11.05.2013 to 12.05.2013 which was accepted by the opposite party and adjusted the amount paid towards booking as per Ex.B2.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 03.04.2013, the complainant issued a letter as per Ex.B3 requesting the opposite party for cancellation of booking and refund of the amount paid towards booking for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:04.04.2013 as per Ex.A2 stating that “As per rules of our Society, no refund is given on cancellation, whatever may be the reason”.   

6.     On a careful perusal of the Ex.B1, rules and regulations for the use of the Sringeri Jagadguru Pravachana Mandiram filed by the opposite party which reads as follows:

Rule No.3:

“No refund of money paid will be made in case of cancellation except the deposit amount.   The applicant, however, will have the option to re-book the mandapam free of charges only once for his use on any subsequent day / days according to his / her choice within two months from the date of cancellation, subject to its availability.   The use of the Mandapam can not be transferred by the applicant to any other person”.

Rule No.7:

“Out of rent collected, any excess over the maintenance etc., charges are utilized towards charitable purposes.  The applicants are therefore requested not to ask for concession or reduction nor for refund of rents paid, due to cancellation”.

proves that there is no amount of any kind utilized towards charity in this case in relation with the amount received towards booking by the complainant. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that on 26.11.2013, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party requesting the refund for which also, the opposite party sent a reply dated:02.12.2013 as per Ex.A4 refunding a sum of Rs.56,180/- by way of cheque No.000101 dated:02.12.2013 drawn on Bank of Baroda, R.K. Nagar Branch was duly acknowledged by the complainant. The opposite party has not paid the balance amount of Rs.2,24,720/- paid towards charges of rent for buildings, Hire charges for furniture, vessels, carpets, motor, grinder and fans for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Service Tax at the rate of 12.36% for a sum of Rs.30,900/-.   The opposite party also has not  stated any substantial reason for non-payment of such huge amount of Rs.2,24,720/- except stating the Rule 3.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to sent a letter dated:02.01.2014 through the Citizen Consumer and civic Action Group, Chennai as per Ex.A5 for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:21.01.2014 as per Ex.A6.  The non-refund for a sum of Rs.2,24,720/- against the Rule 6 & 7 amounts to deficiency in service.  

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that in Ex.A6, reply notice dated:21.01.2014, the opposite party stated that after booking the marriage hall by the complainant, the said hall was kept vacant.  But the opposite party has not produced any record from which date to which date the said marriage hall was kept vacant and not utilized.  As per Ex.B1 receipt, it is very clear that there is no amount specified for building rent.  The rent towards furniture, vessels, carpets, motor grinder and fans has not been utilized by the complainant.  The alleged service tax at the rate of 12.36% amounting Rs.30,900/- has no utilization.  The payment of Rs.6,180/- towards service tax without any reason or any calculation against the collection of service tax of Rs.30,900/- is also amounts to unfair trade practice.

9.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant booked the marriage hall for function dated:01.05.2013 and 02.05.2013 and subsequently changed to 11.05.2013 & 12.05.2013. Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter dated:03.04.2013 informing the opposite party that the marriage was postponed indefinitely and requested for cancellation of booking and refund of the amount paid towards the marriage hall.  As per clause 3 of the rules and regulations, no amount shall be refunded.   The hall was also empty on the above mentioned dates which resulted in a loss of revenue to the opposite party.   But the opposite party failed to produce the records to show that the hall was kept vacant on the following dated: 01.05.2013 & 02.05.2013, 11.05.2013 & 12.05.2013.  It is also not denied by the opposite party that every change of circumstances has been informed to the opposite party for suitable arrangements and making use of the building.  Further the contention of the opposite party in Ex.B1, Application for the use of Sringeri Jagadguru Pravachana Mandiram, the charges, Service Tax and Deposit amounts are given in detail.  Out of which, the deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- and an excess of Rs.6,180/- has been refunded to the complainant which has been accepted by both parties so as to get eligible for using the marriage hall.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.B1, it is very clear that no amount has been mentioned towards the rent.  Equally, the respective hire charges towards furniture, vessels, carpets, motor, grinder, fans etc are not given specifically.  But totally, it is mentioned as Rs.2,00,000/-.  The opposite party can have the revenue only towards the building rent not towards the movable like furniture, vessels etc having wear and tear utilization damages.  In this case, admittedly, the complainant has not utilized the marriage hall for the said function. 

10.    The learned Counsel for the opposite party cited a decision report in:

1994 STPL (CL) 474 NC

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

 

Between

Mukta Kalyan Mandapam

 

-Versus-

 

N. Radhakrishna & anr.

 

 

Held that

 

          “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sec. 2(1) (g) – Hiring Charges – Complainant paid hiring charges in full while booking Kalyan Mandapam – Subsequently, he cancelled the booking – Refund refused Complaint Held, complainant is not entitled to refund as the complaint was not maintainable under the Act – Complaint dismissed”.

In this case, the opposite party has not specifically given any amount towards rent for area of the building, various amenities attached to the building etc.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being 50% of the charges towards rent, furniture, vessels, carpets, motor, grinder, fans etc and to pay a sum of Rs.24,720/- being the balance amount in service tax with cost Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) being 50% of the charges towards rent, furniture, vessels, carpets, motor, grinder, fans etc and to pay a sum of Rs.24,720/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand seven hundred and twenty only) being balance amount in service tax and to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 07^th day of March 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	19.03.2013	Copy of receipt for the amount of Rs.2,80,900/- being booking amount Dates booked 11.05.2013 & 12.05.2013
Ex.A2	04.04.2013	Copy of letter acknowledging receipt of the booking cancellation and refund request option to rebook the Mandabam within 2 months with conditions
Ex.A3	26.04.2013	Copy of refund request letter dated:26.11.2013 by the complainant
Ex.A4	02.12.2013	Copy of letter received from the opposite party along with partial refund of Rs.56,180/-
Ex.A5	02.01.2014	Copy of letter sent by the Citizen Consumer and civic Action Group, Chennai to the opposite party
Ex.A6	21.01.2014	Copy of reply from the opposite party justifying refusal of refund to CAG

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1	19.03.2013	Copy of Application and Rules for use of the Sringeri Pravachana Mandiram
Ex.B2	21.03.2013	Copy of letter of the complainant requesting the change of dates
Ex.B3	03.04.2013	Copy of the letter of the complainant requesting cancellation of dates
Ex.B4	04.04.2013	Copy of the reply letter of the opposite party
Ex.B5	26.11.2013	Copy of the letter of the complainant to opposite party
Ex.B6	02.12.2013	Copy of the reply letter of the opposite party
Ex.B7	02.01.2014	Copy of letter of CAG to the opposite party
Ex.B8	21.01.2014	Copy of the reply letter of the opposite party

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT