BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 02.08.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR  :       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M :      LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 235/2022

ORDER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

01.    The opposite party has filed this Appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the order dated: 29.11.2021 passed in C.C. No.111/2021 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya.

02.    The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the commission below.

03.    Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for parties to the Appeal.   

04.    The District Commission after enquiring into the matter had partly allowed the consumer complaint No.111/2021 on 01.09.2017 by directing the opposite party to pay claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant within 60 days along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 29.10.2020 to till realization and so also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses within 60 days from the date of order failing which it carries interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the order till realization.  Further the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to consumer welfare fund.   

05.    Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party had filed this Appeal.

06.    Perused the impugned order and the grounds urged in the Appeal.   The brief facts of the case is that, in order to perform his daughter’s marriage to be held on 29.10.2020, the complainant had booked a convention hall belongs to the opposite party by paying an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.248.  In the month of September-2020 the opposite party informed that, due to COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown announced by the State Government marriage cannot be celebrated and he will return the advance amount.  Thereafter in-spite of several approaches the opposite party did not repay the advance amount.  Hence complainant made representations to the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore and also to the Police Commissioner of Mysore on 28.07.2021 and subsequently informed the same to the K.R.S. Police and also got issued legal notice to the opposite party, but all went in vain.  Hence complainant filed consumer complaint No.111/2021 before the District Commission, Mandya.   

07.    The grounds urged by the Appellant is that, the learned District Commission has failed to follow the due procedure when the opposite party placed ex-parte, which is contrary to the procedure, since the notice issued to the opposite party has not been duly served.  The averments made in the complaint clearly shows there is no fault on the side of the opposite party, moreover the complainant is a defaulter to the opposite party.  The District Commission had failed to give an opportunity to the opposite party to defend his case and there is no deficiency of service.  Per contra the opposite party had given two opportunities, but complainant had failed to celebrate the marriage.  To perform the complainant daughter’s marriage on 16.05.2020 and 17.05.2020, he made payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance subject to conditions has to be followed by the opposite party’s convention hall.  After that, complainant came and informed that, due to COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown imposed by the State Government the complainant is not in a position to perform the marriage on the date fixed and requested to give alternative dates.  Once again complainant booked the marriage convention hall on 28.10.2020 and 29.10.2020 for which the opposite party had handed over the handbill to the complainant.  Though complainant booked in the month of May 2020 and the same was rescheduled in the month of October-2020 and he never performed the same.  The opposite party reserved the hall to the complainant and has not given to anybody and due to the nonperforming of marriage on both dates fixed by the complainant, the opposite party sustained huge loss.  In the hand bill the opposite party categorically printed the instructions.  The learned District Commission failed to collect clarification from the opposite party about the discrepancy and passed illegal order which is one sided.

08.    It is not in dispute that, on 07.02.2020 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance amount to the opposite party to perform his daughter’s marriage held on 19.10.2020 in the opposite party’s convention hall.  Now the main crux of the matter is that, due to the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions imposed by the State Government, the complainant could not perform his daughter’s marriage in the opposite party’s convention hall on the fixed dates and hence he sought refund of the advance amount from the opposite party.  Thereafter in-spite of several approaches made by the complainant and subsequently filing of complaints to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore and K.R.S. Police and issuance of legal notice to the opposite party, the opposite party did not come forward to make refund of Rs.1,00,000/-.  To substantiate the complainant’s case he has submitted Annexure-C.1 to Annexure-C.8 before the District Commission and on the basis of the said documents the District Commission had rightly passed its order.  However in our opinion directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the consumer welfare fund is unwarranted and only to this extent the impugned order needs to be modified.  Accordingly Appeal stands disposed-off.  No order as to costs.

09.    The amount kept in deposit by the appellant shall be transferred to the District Commission for needful.      

10.    Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.

LADY MEMBER        JUDICIAL MEMBER         PRESIDENT

KNMP*