Hon'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The case record is taken up for passing Final Order.
The contention of the Complainant in short is that the marriage ceremony the daughter of the Complainant Kamal Dutta was settled on 04.05.20. The Complainant booked the marriage ceremony hall of the OP namely Gouri Mahal for which he paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as booking to the OP proprietor of Gouri Mahal on 19.02.20 against which the OP issued money receipt No.22 dated 19.02.20. Unfortunately suddenly the lockdown was imposed due to Covid-19 over whole India. The marriage ceremony which was settled to be held on 04.05.20 was postponed due to the said Covid-19 and a new date of fixed on 20.11.20.
Therefore the Complainant approaches to the OP for refunding the advance money of Rs.10,000/- on 19.02.20 but the OP refused to refund it and also refused to allow the Complainant to hold the marriage ceremony in the said Hotel. Accordingly the Complainant was compelled to settle the marriage ceremony at Assam on that stipulated date on 30.11.20. The Complainant sent a letter to the OP on 17.10.20 for refunding the advance money but the OP did not reply to the same. Finally the Complainant sent a Lawyers notice on 14.12.20 but despite receiving the letter and replying to the same the OP did not pay the said money. Therefore the activities of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. The Complainant having found no alternative filed the present case. The cause of action arose on 19.02.20, 17.10.20 and lastly on 14.10.20. The Complainant therefore prayed for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as booking money with 10% interest from the Complainant, Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The OP being the proprietor of Gouri Mahal initially appear in the case and filed written version.
The OP contested the case by filing written version. The OP denied each and every allegation of the Complainant. The positive case of the OP in brief is that the OP admits that the Complainant approached the OP for booking the banquet hall on 19.02.20 for his daughter marriage ceremony and paid Rs.10,000/- to the OP against which he issued a money receipt to the Complainant on 19.02.20. At that time the OP explained to the Complainant categorically that the advance money is not refundable. Due to Covid-19 Pandemic the business of the OP also closed down for which he suffered business loss. The marriage ceremony of the Complainant was postponed without any intimation to the OP. Subsequently it was also informed to the Complainant that the said amount will be adjusted against booking fee for the next booking of the marriage hall but the Complainant was hell-bent for refund of the advance money. Accordingly the question of deficiency in service does not arise. The Complainant is entitled to any compensation and the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The given facts and circumstance of the case of the parties led this Commission to ascertain the following points in dispute.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act?
- Whether the alleged misdeeds on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in service?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to let the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The case record shows that the OP in his written version did not plea anything challenging the status of the Complainant as consumer. However having considered the pleading of both the parties and the materials on case record the Commission is of the view that the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act.
Accordingly Point No.1 is answered on behalf of the Complainant.
Points No. 2,3 & 4.
All the points are very closely interlinked with each other, so these are taken up together for convenience of brevity of discussion. The Complainant in order to establish the case adduced evidence in the form of affidavit as well as some documents as documentary evidence. After perusing the entire documents it is found that annexure-A being the receipt of advance money receipt dated 19.02.20 issued by Gouri Mahal wherefrom it transpires that a sum of Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- was paid by the Complainant Kamal Dutta to the OP on 19.02.20 for the purpose of marriage. The OP also admitted the said fact in his written version. Therefore it stands well proved that the Complainant advanced a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards booking of marriage hall on 19.02.20.
The defence contention in the written version also reveals that the Complainant could not contact the said marriage due to Covide-19 situation and all the program within India was postponed due Pandemic situation on lockdown.
The Complainant also pleaded and proved through document in the form of a letter dated 17.10.20 wherein he complained of inter alia his distressed condition during the lockdown period for which he had no alternative but to get back the advance sum of Rs.10,000/- from the OP. The received the said letter but did not reply in black and white for not refunding the said money.
Ld. Defence counsel argued that it was a natural calamity and as such he had no fault in closing down the hall as per order of the DM. However the OP could not prove any order of the DM, Cooch Behar showing that the hall will remain closed. Be that as it may the basic fact is that the intervening period was under lockdown. So it was not under the control of both the parties to take part in the said ceremony. But the specific plea of the Complainant that he subsequently contacted with the OP and demanded money goes to show that the situation was show that he could not organize the marriage ceremony within West Bengal and finally settled to celebrate the marriage at Assam on 30.11.20.
Ld. Defence counsel all along argued to the effect that the said advance sum of money was not refundable which is already stated in black and white in the advance money receipt dated 19.02.20.
Perused the said document and given due consideration to the said argument but the fact remains that there is no specific document showing that under what circumstance the advance money is not refundable. There is no agreement between the parties where from it can be ascertained that either of the parties violated the terms of the agreement for which the advance money can be forfeited by the OP. In fact, the OP got sufficient time to meet the grievances of the Complainant. In other words, there is nothing to show that the OP suffered any loss due to the cancellation of the oral agreement between the parties. The cancellation of the program cannot be said to be unilateral on the part of the Complainant. In fact, the situation can be considered as a vis major. So, the Complainant had no alternative but to give her daughter’s marriage by going to a different State from State of West Bengal. Just to organize marriage ceremony of her daughter, she had to go to Assam, which was actually more costly. Therefore, the given facts and circumstances lead to hold the Commission that there was no latches on the part of the Complainant to hold that the marriage ceremony on a subsequent date of marriage hall “Gouri Mahal” of the OP.
The OP could not make out any specific defence case regarding his failure to refund the said sum of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly the Commission has no alternative but to form the opinion that the misdeed on the part of the OP tantamounts to deficiency in service. It is pertinent to consider that the marriage was settled on another date as she failed to organize it on the date fixed. That being the state of affairs, it should be considered as mental pain and agony to the OP.
In the back drop of the discussion made here in above and observation made therein the Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant sustained mental pain and agony due to the harassment suffered by him and not getting back the advance money.
Thus it is duly held that Complainant succeeded in proving the case against the OP resulting in holding all the points No. 2,3 & 4 in favour of the Complainant.
Consequently the complaint case succeeds on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the case No. CC/1/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.
The Complainant Kamal Dutta do get an award of Rs.10,000/- as refund of advance booking with 10% interest from 19.02.20 till the date of payment from the OP, Rs.20,000/- as deficiency in service and mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. Complainant is directed to pay the said awarded sum of Rs.10,000/- + 10% interest + Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing Final Order failing which the entire awarded sum will carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of passing Final Order till the date realization thereof.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
