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

DATED 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed U/s 35 of consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to pay sum of Rs.1,33,515/- along with interest of 18% per annum, to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony of deficiency of service and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant No.1 and 2 are husband and wife residing at Bangalore, have booked convention hall to perform the marriage of their daughters on 28^th and 29^th of May 2020. Complainant have paid an advance of Rs.2,53,700/- at the time of booking the convention hall by way of cheque bearing No.029511 dated 11-12-2019 by complainant No.2 OP have issued receipt on 11.12.2019 bearing receipt No.474. The said amount included SGST 9% and CGST 9%. Complainant stated that after booking of the convention hall due to pandemic Covid-19 Government had declared lockdown and marriages were not allowed to perform during that period. To that effect complainant had issued a letter on 03.04.2020 requesting OP to cancel the booking of convention hall and to refund the amount they paid towards it, i.e. Rs.2,53,700/-. Subsequently on 10.06.2020 Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore District also had issued a circular stating that all Choultiries/Convention Hall booked by the parties for the marriage, to be refunded by the management of convention halls in general after deducting 5% of tax amount. After issuance of the said circular, OP had refunded the amount of Rs.1,07,500/- by way of cheque bearing No.166328 dated 17.09.2020 drawn on ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bangalore in favour of complainant No.2.

3. Complainant further stated that OP is still due to refund Rs.1,33,515/- as per the calculation after deducting 5% of tax amount. Complainant requested OP several times to refund the remaining balance amount but OP did not refund the same. Complainant even visited OP’s office but OP not replied and refunded the balance amount. Therefore complainant finally issued legal notice to OP on 07.07.2022 through RPAD calling upon to refund the remaining booking amount of Rs.1,33,515/-. Even after receipt of the notice, OP neither responded to the legal notice nor refunded the balance amount. Hence complainant approached this commission for the relief.

4. OP represented through its counsel on the date of appearances and prays time for the version. In spite of sufficient opportunity given to OP, has not filed version. Hence the stage is set down to adduce affidavit evidence of the complainant. Complainant No.1 filed his affidavit evidence along with 6 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Heard arguments of counsel for complainant and perused the material on record.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the party the following points will arise for our consideration :-

i) Whether the complainant has proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as sought in the complaint?

 iii) What order?

6. Our answers to the about points are as follows:-

i)Point No.1:-  In the affirmative

ii)Point No.2:-  Partly affirmative

iii)Point No.3:- As per the final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- As stated by the complainants, have booked an conventional hall to perform the marriage of their daughters on 28^th and 29^th of May 2020 by paying advance amount of Rs.2,53,700/-. For that OP has issued receipt bearing No.474 on 11.12.2019, which is at Ex.P.1. As we all aware during May 2020 due to the pandemic Covid-19, Government of India has declared the lockdown nationwide and instructed the citizen to follow the protocol to maintain the better health situation. Accordingly complainant’s decided to cancel the marriage performance and requested OP to cancel the booking of marriage hall which was scheduled on 28^th and 29^th May 2020 and also requested to refund the amount of Rs.2,53,700/-, which is at Ex.P.3. As according to lockdown, all districts Deputy Commissioner has taken precautionary measures towards it. Similarly, after the circular passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District OP refunded Rs.1,07,500/- in favour of complainant by way of cheque bearing No.166328 dated 17.09.2020 in favour of Complainant No.2, which is at Ex.P.2. As complainant stated that the circular passed by Deputy Commissioner was clearly instructed to the management of the marriage halls to deduct 5% of tax amount out of the amount collected by the parties, to be refunded.

8. On perusal of the complaint and documents the complainant requested several times to OP to refund the balance amount after deducting 5% out of it, when the OP did not refund, complainant issued legal notice to OP on 07.07.2022 which is at Ex.P.4, which was duly served on OP as per Ex.P.6. Even after the receipt of legal notice OP did not come forward to refund the balance amount to the complainant which shows its negligence and the malafide intention of OP. When the complainants paid Rs.2,53,700/- OP has refunded part amount which amounts to 40% of the amount paid by complainants and OP retains 60% of its amount without rendering any services to the complainants, is unjust and unfair.

9. As according to the observation, during the period of lockdown universally applied circulars and protocol conditions are well aware to each and everyone, since it was problem affected throughout the nation. Government itself initiated the guidelines applied to concerned authorities. Since the marriage was in peak of the Covid-19, immediately after the lockdown, complainant has made request by issuing letter on 03.04.2020 to OP for cancellation and refund without any delay it was genuine reason for the cancellation. OP did not refund the entire amount by deducting the reasonable cost. OP refunded only Rs.1,07,500/- on 17.09.2020, that too delayed by 5 months of the request received from complainants.

10. If at all OP is bonafide in its responsibility, it could refund the amount after the deduction of nominal cost, but OP did not pay. Hence OP delayed in paying the amount even after several requests and that too he paid 40% of amount and retained 60% of it. In our view, retaining 60% of amount without rendering any service, is not fair. With that regard complainant caused legal notice, but OP did not repay. It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence OP is liable to pay interest on the amount. In case the OP denies the allegations of complainant, OP could appear before this commission and defend his case, but OP remained absent on the date of proceedings. OP neither filed its version nor lead its evidence. Therefore the evidence placed by complainant before this commission is unchallenged. On the above reasons we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.

11. Point No.2:- Even after several request OP did not refund balance amount since from 03.04.2020. Hence he is liable to refund Rs.1,33,515/- after the deduction of tax of 5%. Due to the delay in payment, OP is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs. 1,33,515/- from 03.04.2020. Without any genuine reason OP retained the huge amount of Rs.1,46,200/- is unfair and is liable to pay compensation to the complainants for the delay he made unnecessarily and OP kept the complainant in dark without any reply to the legal notice and refunded the amount. Therefore OP is liable to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service, mental agony caused to the complainant. OP is also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of proceedings. For the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.2 in partly affirmative.

12. Point No.3:- On the basis, the findings given on the Point 1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following:-

                                     ORDER

i) Complaint filed U/S 35 under Consumer Protection Act 2019, is allowed in part.

ii) OP is directed to refund Rs. 1,33,515/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 03.04.2020 till realization.

iii) OP is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP shall pay 10% interest on Award amount from the date of order till realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th day of JUNE, 2023)

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

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL