DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 16^th  day of April 2024

                           Filed on: 05/10/2020

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member

C.C. No. 285/2020

COMPLAINANT

Aravind M.S & Sheeba Aravind, Savidham House, 28/3486-A, Chilavannur Road, Kadavanthra-682 020.

(By Adv.Sibha S., P9, 1^st Floor, Pure Business Centre, Kombara Junction, Ernakulam-682 018)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

The General Secretary, Ernakulam Karayogam, TDM Hall Complex,    D.H Road, Ernakulam, Pin-682 016

(O.p by Adv.George Cherian, Karippaparambil Associates, H.B.No.48, Panampilly Nagar P.O., Cochin-682 036)

F I N A L   O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

This consumer complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by Sri.Aravind M S and Smt.Sheeba Aravind, Savidham House, Chilavannur Road, Kadavanthra, Kochi 20 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party viz., General Secretary Ernakulam Karayogam, TDM Hall Complex Ernakulam. 

The complainants states that he had approached the opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.2000/- in cash to block the date for the Hall on 23.12.2018 for the marriage of their daughter.  Another amount of Rs.88,000/- was also paid by way of cheque number 163189 through SBT account No.67381714162 on 10^th July 2018 to confirm date.  At that time the opposite party told the complainant that the package which can be offered for 600 people for a consolidated amount of Rs.1,80,000/-.  The terms and conditions signed and exchanged on that day having another annexure with 2 language interpretations which says Malayalam will be considered if any dispute arises.  The booked date can be changed by paying 25% extra of the hall rent.  Due to various personal reasons, the complainants were forced to change the date by agreeing to pay 25% extra of the hall rent.  The complainants gave a letter saying that they were not prepared to conduct the marriage on the booked date and informed that another convenient date shall be intimated in due course.

On 14.07.2019 the complainants approached the opposite party after making all arrangements for the marriage including an engagement function, to avail a date for their earlier payment the amount of which was in their account as 67500/- after 25% deferment charge reduction. But the manager Mr.Pishareth Ramachandran denied the right of old payment by stating the reason that the financial year was over and the old payment was forfeited as a whole. No document or information available elsewhere saying such forfeiture and the complainants believed that was totally an illegal extortion of money by cornering and utilizing the situation sentimentally.  The complainants have no other options except to pay all the money they demanded.  The opposite party were doing business as marriage package and the payment earlier was not for the prevailing new package.  Working out a package time to time is totally a business tactics of a service provider.  The complainant repeatedly requested to the opposite party for written documents or terms and condition and for Clauses which support the forfeiture of their older payment. Unfortunately, the opposite party failed to show any Byelaw or documents which support the forfeiture of Rs.67,500/-.  Hence the complainants approached the internal complaint redressal cell and appeal committee to claim for the payment.  The office staff told them that the balance payment can be adjusted after process.  So the complainant was forced to pay another Rs.75,000/- by way of cheque No.147270 of ICICI bank dated 16.07.2019.  At that point of time complainants were offered a reduced rate of hall rent and all other facilitates as a package of Rs.2,25,000/-.  The terms and conditions given were the same as in the earlier booking package. Additional charges and expenses except GST and mandapam decorations were purposefully kept secret.  The complainants stated that they were forced to use the mandapam (stage) decorations and all other services which were highly expensive as per the rate and pictures given to them.  The complainants made a total amount of payment of Rs.4,46,150/- to the opposite party. 

The complainant states that there was a gallery of mandapam (stage) decorations available as online.  They were told to opt one of them.  Both Bride’s and Groom’s family opted a design with marking K1.  The rate for the same (Rs.50000 + 18% GST + 1% KFC) paid 10 days in advance to the hall owners.  But the real mandapam which the complainants were allowed to see just 2 hrs before the function was totally different from the K1 image at the website.  The complainants stated that the mandapam picture showed in website was rich and beautiful with much more jasmine flowers and the real mandapam was only having cheap jamandi flowers and less quantity and hence the groom’s party was really disappointed with it.

As per the menu in the website, the opposite party charged Rs.150/- for sadya per person and for the consolidated number of 800 people, the amount should be Rs.1,26,000 including GST.  But the actual rate were charged is Rs.1,74,900/- , which cunningly hide the quantity of good served and having “other services” entry.  That was explained later as serving charges, waste disposal charges, cleaning the dining hall charges and rent for utensils used to serve the food etc.  It was totally hidden from the complainants until the last moment.  Also it says Rs.55.0 per person charges as supply charges.  Actual people attended the feast was 580 only.  But the opposite party charged for 800 people.  The complainants state that it was a marriage function; they have no other options at that time. The complainants suffered severe mental agony, mental pain due the negligent attitude of the opposite party and hence the complainants demanded for the difference of Rs.48,900/- with interest plus compensation for the mental agony and harassment.

2)       Notice

          Upon notice from this Commission the opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed their version.

3)       Version of the opposite party

          The opposite party contended that the complainants have booked the two marriage halls, Ganga and Periyar at TDM hall complex vide application No.71 dated 16.07.2019 for the marriage function of their daughter to be held on 14.12.2019 and remitted advance of Rs.75,000/-.  The complainants have opted option 1 package, which consists of hall rent and the catering charges.  In the package itself, it is very clearly mentioned that the charges for flower arrangement, stage decoration charges, and cost of extra items/differential rate etc are excluded from the package.  Further on 02.12.2019, while selecting the menu for marriage first complainant has duly signed and mentioned in detail their entire requirements in menu form.  In the menu form, duly signed and accepted, by first complainant, it had clearly mentioned about various other requirements such as supply charges, for which rate is also mentioned as Rs.55/- per person attending the function.  It is also stipulated that the rate mentioned is excluding GST.

Based on the documents duly signed and acknowledged by the complainants the details of the advance amount collected, invoiced and refunded to the complainants in connection with the marriage function of their daughter dated on 14.12.2019 is as follows:

Thus the entire amount received from the complainants by the opposite party as detailed above supported by GST invoices for the service rendered.  Further the balance due Rs.49,000/- to the complainants was refunded as per Cheque No.313829 dated 17.12.2019 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Ernakulam south Branch.  The said cheque was forwarded to the first complainant as requested by him vide registered letter dated 18.12.2019. Accordingly admittedly the accounts of the function were settled. The complainants were raking up false allegations against the opposite party regarding non refund of Rs.2000/- paid on 06.07.2018 and Rs.88,000/- paid on 12.07.2018.

It is submitted that Rules 8,9 and 10 are the relevant rules governing refund and forfeiture of the amounts paid for booking the halls in TDM hall complex.  The first complainant on 12.07.2018 has after reading the 19 Rules and Regulations which are printed both in Malayalam and English (overleaf) has accepted the said Rules and Regulations by affixing his signature in the said rules and regulations declaring that “I/We have read and agreed to abide by the above rules and regulations of the Ernakulam Karayogam and pay rent for the hall and other charges as fixed by the Karayogam and signed hereunder”.

The aforesaid Rules and Regulations are reproduced hereunder:

Rule 8:     “If the hall is not used on the date booked no refund of hall rent paid will be made”.

Rule 9: “If written request is lodged for the cancellation of the booking of the hall 90 days prior to the date booked, fifty percent of the hall rent will be refunded.  If cancellation request is received within 90 days of the date booked no refund of hall rent will be eligible.

Rule 10: “If the required function date is subsequently changed to another date, an amount equal to twenty five percent of the hall rent will be charged extra”.

          According to the complainants though the hall was booked for the marriage function of their daughter which was slated on 23.12.2018, the marriage could not be conducted.  A letter was given to the Ernakulam Karayogam intimating the change of date of booking of the halls to another date to be communicated later, the said letter is dated 17.12.2018 just 16 days prior to the date booked.

          Going by the Rule 9 of the Rules and Regulations of booking the complainants are not entitled to get refund of the rent.  Whereas considering the request of the first complainant, member, the Ernakulam Karayogam permitted to reschedule the booking of hall to any available date upto 31.03.2019.  Accordingly on 28.12.2018, the first complainant made a blocking of the said hall for 31.03.2019 by remitting an amount of Rs.2000/- as blocking charges.  Admittedly the blocking is valid only for a period of 7 days.  However admittedly the complainants have neither remitted the extra amount of 25% stipulated in Rule 10 of the  Rules and Regulations nor took any further steps pursuant to such blocking.  Thus first complainant, member has failed to avail the benefit provided under Rule 10 of the Rules and Regulations extended by the Ernakulam Karayogam.

          If the first complainant, member had availed of the permission to change the date of function to 31.03.2019 by taking further steps pursuant to such blocking he could have claimed the adjustment of the hall rent after deducting 25% of the hall rent for the function on 31.03.2019, the date on which the hall was blocked.  However, the first complainant, member did not take any further steps pursuant to thereafter within 7 days of blocking.  There was no request for change of date of hall in between.  It was only after 7months after the date of blocking on 16.07.2019 the first complainant, member approached at the office of the Ernakulam Karayogam enquiring about the availability of the hall for 14.12.2019.  Rule 8 of Rules and Regulations which provides the “if the hall is not used on the date booked no refund of hall rent paid will be made”, the complainants having not utilized the hall even on 31.03.2019 are not entitled for refund of the rent or any adjustment on future rent.

          Hence as per the Rules and Regulations agreed upon by the complainants, the complainants are not entitled for any refund.  Thus the entire contrary averments and allegations in the consumer complaint regarding non refund of Rs.2000/- paid on 06.07.2018 and Rs.88,000/- paid on 12.07.2018 against the opposite party are not tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case and the prayer in the consumer complaint for refund of money is not maintainable.

4)       Evidence

          Complainant filed proof affidavit.  Complainant is cross examined by the counsel for the opposite party through Advocate Commissioner and his depositions are recorded as ‘PW1’.  Exbt.A1 to A14 marked during examination of the witness. Exbt.A6, A13 and A14 were marked subject to objection. Exbt.A13 and A14 are objected by the opposite party since opposite party said that the said documents are manipulated and produced without CD or negative photographs.

          Exbt.B1 to B6 documents were marked from the side of the opposite party during cross examination of the complainant including Exbt.B4 series.

          On 07.11.2023 opposite party filed I.A.804/2023.  I.A. allowed. Exbt.B7 to B12 were also marked form the side of the opposite party. 

          Exbt.A1 is a copy of bank voucher issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 12.07.2018 for an amount of Rs.90000-2000=88000/-.  Exbt.A2 is the conditions of Hall booking charges. Exbt.A3 is the copy of details of Rules and Regulations to be observed by the person booking the Hall.  Exbt.A4 is a letter given by the Secretary stating that due to the unavoidable circumstances the complainant; the complainant is forced to postpone the date of the marriage of their daughter which was decided to be solemnized at the Hall Ganga and Kavery which was booked on 23.12.2018.  Exbt.A5 is a copy of application for the hall booking.  Exbt.A6 is a C.D recording of telephone conversation.  Exbt.A7 is a bank receipt voucher for Rs.75000/-.  Exbt.A8 is a copy of booking charge details for the members of Ernakulam Karayogam.  Exbt.A9 is a copy of Rules and Regulations to be observed by those who are booking TDM Hall.  Exbt.A10 is a receipt voucher.  Exbt.A11 is a tax invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant in which it can be seen that an amount of Rs.232750/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party on 14.12.2019 and Exbt.A12 is also a copy of tax invoice for Rs.71400/- dated 14.12.2019.  Exbt.A13 and Exbt.A14 are two photographs of the Dias of the hall in which the marriage was solemnized.

          Exbt.B1 is a copy of byelaw.  Exbt.B2 is the memorandum of association and bylaw.  Exbt. B3 is a copy of minutes of complaint redressal cell of Ernakulam Karayogam. Exbt.B4 is  a copy of the decision of the appeal committee. Exbt.B5 is a copy of booking details.  Exbt.B6 is a copy of menu for marriage.  Exbt.B7 is a copy of the application form filed by the complainant.  Exbt.B8 is a copy of tax invoice of the opposite party given to the complainant.  Exbt.B9 is also a tax invoice.  Exbt.B10 is a copy of the cheque leaf issued by the complainant to the opposite party.  Exbt.B11 is a copy of registered letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party.  Exbt.B12 is a copy of rules and Regulations to be observed in respect of TDM Hall.

5)       The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainants?
2.  

(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?

6)       Point No. (i)

The Commission examined the matter in detail. For conducting the marriage of the daughter of the complainants, the complainants had booked Periyar and Ganga Halls of Ernakulam Karayogam and had remitted a total amount of Rs.90,000/-as rent of the hall.  The complainants had very clearly proved with support of the documents which have mentioned earlier that the above amount was paid to the opposite party by the complainants.  Further, the complainants had not proceeded with the marriage ceremony which was booked on 23.12.2018 due to their own reasons and thereafter it can be seen that they had blocked the said hall on 31.03.2019.  They have not utilized the hall for conducting the marriage.  It can be seen that the complainants had approached the office of the opposite party for booking the hall on 14.12.2019 for remitting the amount equal to 25% of the hall rent as per Clause 9 and 10 of rules for booking the hall.  The opposite party took a stand that the amount already paid by the complainant cannot be refunded and an additional amount of Rs.75,000/- has to be paid again for the hall.  The complainant thereafter sent a letter on 19.08.2019 to the Secretary of the opposite party for getting release or for adjustment. The stand of the opposite party was that as per the by-law it is not possible for them to pay the full amount that had been paid by the complainant against the booking.  On verification of Exbt.B2 produced by the opposite party and also on perusal of the entire rules and regulations contained in the byelaw the Commission noted the following points. Among which the following are the most relevant.

          If the hall is not used on the date of booking no refund of the hall rent shall be made.  Subsequently it can be seen that if the written request for cancellation of booking of the hall is received 90 days prior to the date booked, fifty percent of the hall rent will be refunded.  If cancellation request is received within 90 days of the date booked no refund of hall rent will be made.   Moreover, it can be seen that if the date of marriage function is subsequently changed to another date; an amount equal to 25% of the hall rent will be extra.  On verification of the documents and details submitted by the complainant it can be seen that the complainant had not complied with the rules and regulations and with the by law of the opposite party (Ernakulam Karayogam). The complainant being a member of the Karayogam, ought to have every reason to obey with the rules and regulations and to the byelaw.  In this case, as per the documents it is very clear that the complainant had not complied with the above rules and regulations of the opposite party and also has not proved any of the allegation including that regarding the decoration of hall on merit. There is no merit in any one of the points in this case and the complainant had not produced even an iota of evidence in his favour or prove that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed since there is no merit in the complaint.

      Pronounced in the Open Commission this 16^th day of April  2024.

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                             V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                             D.B.Binu, President

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                             Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainants’ Evidence

Exbt.A1 is a copy of bank voucher issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 12.07.2018 for an amount of Rs.90000-2000=88000/-.

Exbt.A2 is the conditions of Hall booking charges.

Exbt.A3 is the copy of details of Rules and Regulations to be observed by the person booking the Hall. 

Exbt.A4 is a letter given by the Secretary stating that due to the unavoidable circumstances the complainant; the complainant is forced to postpone the date of the marriage of their daughter which was decided to be solemnized at the Hall Ganga and Kavery which was booked on 23.12.2018. 

Exbt.A5 is a copy of application for the hall booking. 

Exbt.A6 is a C.D recording of telephone conversation. 

Exbt.A7 is a bank receipt voucher for Rs.75000/-. 

Exbt.A8 is a booking charges details for the members of Ernakulam Karayogam. 

Exbt.A9 is a copy of Rules and Regulations to be observed by those who are booking TDM Hall. 

Exbt.A10 is a receipt voucher. 

Exbt.A11 is a tax invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant in which it can be seen that an amount of Rs.232750/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party on 14.12.2019

Exbt.A12 is also a copy of tax invoice for Rs.71400/- dated 14.12.2019.  Exbt.A13 and Exbt.A14 are two photographs of the Dias of the hall in which the marriage was solemnized.

The opposite party produced Exbt.B1 to B12 documents.

Exbt.B1 is a copy of byelaw. 

Exbt.B2 is the memorandum of association and bylaw. 

Exbt. B3 is a copy of complaint redressal cell of Ernakulam Karayogam. Exbt.B4 is  a copy of the decision of the appeal committee.

Exbt.B5 is a booking details. 

Exbt.B6 is a copy of menu for marriage. 

Exbt.B7 is a copy of the application form filed by the complainant. 

Exbt.B8 is a copy of tax invoice of the opposite party itself given to the complainant. 

Exbt.B9 is also a tax invoice. 

Exbt.B10 is a copy of the cheque leaf issued by the complainant to the opposite party. 

Exbt.B11 is a copy of registered letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party. 

Exbt.B12 is a copy of rules and Regulations to be observed the person at TDM Hall.

uk/

Date of Despatch   :

By Hand

By Post                                    : By post