Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/600

DEEPAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

GREEN LOUNGE WEST BANQUET - Opp.Party(s)

22 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTRE; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI.

 

CASE NO.  600/15

 

SH. DEEPAK MEHTA

ADD- D-402, Swami Dayanand Appts.,

Plot No. 5, Sector-6,

Dwarka, New Delhi—110075.                                                    …..Complainant

 

VERSUS

GREEN LOUNGE WEST BANQUETS.

Ajanta Cinema Complex, IVORY Tower,

Subhash Nagar, New Delhi—110027.

Sector-43, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.                                             …..Opposite Party-1

 

 

 

A UNIT OF NEETI NAGPAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.

ADD- G/39-43, Aggarwal City Mall Road,

No: 44, Pritam Pura,

Delhi-11003                                                                             …..Opposition Party-2

 

 

O R D E R

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

        Present complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts as alleged by the complainant are that, the complainant booked hall of OP-1 on 26.02.2014 for his daughter’s marriage which was scheduled for 21.06.2014. It is alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as advance vide receipt No. 530, dated 26.02.2014 to OP-1. It is alleged that due to unavoidable circumstances the function had to be cancelled, the complainant approached OP-1 for cancellation of booking and refund of the advance money. The OP-1 refused to refund the advance money and told complainant that it could be only adjusted with another booking in future. It is alleged that, later the complainant approached OP-1 in November, 2014 to book the hall again as promised by OP-1. However, the OP refused to book the hall on ground that hall is already booked for the same day. The complainant then, requested to refund the money but same was refused and again reiterated that the money can be adjusted in future. It is alleged that OP-1 has faced no inconvenience or loss due to cancellation as it was informed three months prior to the date of booking. It is further, alleged that complainant has suffered financial, mental and physical harassment at the hand of OP-1 due to their mal-practice and unfair practice.  Hence, the present complaint for direction to the OP-1 to refund sum of Rs. 50,000/- as advance amount with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and also prayed to award Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation financial, mental and physical harassment.

          Upon notice OPs appeared and filed reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that the complaint is false, frivolous and baseless and the complainant has suppressed material facts, and the Forum has no jurisdiction as the complaint is not a consumer dispute and hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. On merits, OPS admitted that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as advance was paid to OP-1 for booking hall. It is asserted that the clause No. 3 on the receipt clearly states that the advance is not refundable on cancellation of the booking and the complainant is well aware of the terms and conditions. It is asserted that when the Manager of OP-1 informed about the policy, the complainant threatened the Manager and forcefully made the Manager to write-down that the amount of advance payment shall be be adjusted for the next function. It is asserted that the complainant never visited after 23.03.2014 and before October. It is further, asserted that the complainant alongwith his wife visited OPs in month of October for refund of the advance amount. Again, OPs intimated that there is no refundable policy and the complainant told OPs to book the hall for the month of November. The OP-1 asked the complaint to fill the application alongwith the marriage invitation card to check the date for availability of the hall, but the same was refused by the complainant. It is further, asserted that the OPs never promised to book the hall for his family or friends. It is asserted that the OPs had to suffer huge lose due to cancellation as the booking has to circulated among others to arrange the hall for function. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply reiterating the facts in the complaint and controverting the stand taken by the OPs. It is contended by the complainant that the cancellation was informed prior three months before the date of function and the cancellation is due to reasons beyond the control of the complainant. He further, contended that the OP has given in writing to adjust the advance in the next function.

          When the parties asked to lead evidence the complaint filed affidavit reiterating the facts stated in the complaint on oath. He relied on receipt dated 26.02.2014, undertaking dated 23.03.2014 and letter dated 20.08.2015. OP-1 filed affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Saini reiterating the stand taken in the reply and denying the allegation of complainant. It is asserted that the complainant forcefully made OP-1 to write on plain paper to adjust the advance amount in future. OP-2 also filed affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Nagpal reiterating the stand taken in the reply by OP-1 & OP-2 and controverting the stand taken by the complainant. Written arguments are also filed by OPs.

          We have heard complaint in person and Sh. Vivek Chandra Ld. Counsel for OPs. And have gone through material on record carefully and thoroughly.

          The main controversy involved is whether the complainant is entitled for the relief he is seeking. From the perusal of the receipt it reveals that the advance amount is non-refundable. Nevertheless the OP-1 has admitted in its reply that the complainant has forcefully made them to promise to adjust the advance amount in future. But, the contention of OP-1 does not hold water as how the person who is running business can be forced to write against his wishes. Moreover, there is no document in record to show that the complaint was lodged regarding the threatening and intimidation committed by the complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the contention of OPs is not tenable in eyes of law. Hence, we are opinion that the OP-1 who has promised to adjust the amount in next booking and failed to give the services as promised is deficient and services and by adopting unfair trade practice illegally hold the advance amount the complaint.

          Keeping in view the above discussions and observation, we direct to OPs to refund the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as advance amount and also award Rs. 5,000/- on account of compensation on financial, mental pain, agony harassment and litigation expenses within 30 days of the receipts of the order. In default of payment in time OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization.

          File be consigned to the Record Room.

          Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.  

Announced this______22______day of ___________December, 2018.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                    (K.S. MOHI)

     MEMBER                                                                                               PRESIDENT