Delhi

East Delhi

CC/141/2020

SHARAD JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S COUNTRY INN & SUITES BY REDISSON - Opp.Party(s)

08 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 141/2020

 

	SHARAD JAIN R/O D-26, PREET VIHAR, DELHI - 110092	….Complainant
Versus
	M/S COUNTRY INN & SUITES BY RADISSON, 64/6, SAHIBABAD, OPPOSITE VAISHALI METRO STATION, GHAZIABAD – 101010 UTTAR PRADESH	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution	:	16.09.2020
Judgment Reserved on	:	20.04.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	05.05.2023

 

                  

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency of service in not refunding the amount of advance deposited by complainant for the purpose of function of the marriage of his Son which was scheduled to be held on 12.04.2020.
2. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant in the complaint are that for the purpose of the marriage function of his son he booked the Party Hall of the OP and paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.01.2020/- and Rs.1,70,000/- on 14.01.2020.  The OP again demanded Rs.4,98,000/- on 19.03.2020 but on account of the Lockdown declaration the same was not paid rather Complainant demanded these amount back from the OP and the OP did not return the amount rather issued a credit note for Rs.2,70,000/- stating there in, that the same would be valid upto 31.03.2021 and may be utilized by the Complainant either in the Banquet or w.r.t. Restaurants but the amount was not returned.  The legal notice was issued upon OP but of no consequence and as such he filed the present complaint thereby seeking a prayer that OP be directed to refund the said amount of Rs.2,70,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.
3. OP was served and has filed his Written Statement inter alia stating that complainant is liable to be dismissed as the same is misconceived, it is without any cause of action and even this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as only the Civil Court has the jurisdiction. 
4. It is further submitted that Complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP rather Complainant himself is a wrong doer and even otherwise as per the written agreement the amount was not an advance rather was an Earnest Money and was not returnable. 
5. On merits facts w.r.t. payment of Rs.2,70,000/- by Complainant is not denied rather it is submitted that the OP had suffered a loss of Rs.9,10,000/- on account of wrong doing of the complainant.  In addition to this the preliminary objections are reiterated and it is prayed that Complaint of the Complainant be dismissed. 
6. Complainant has filed Rejoinder and denied the contents of Written Statement and reaffirmed the contents of the complaint.   
7. The Complainant has filed his evidence also and matter was fixed for OP but since OP was not present on 04.11.2022, thus was proceeded Ex-parte. 
8. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
9. The facts in nutshell are not disputed that the Party Hall for the marriage of the Son of the Complainant was booked and Rs.2,70,000/- was paid by the Complainant to the OP which is not disputed.  The OP demanded another amount of Rs.4,98,000/- which was not paid is also not disputed and there was a country wide lockdown as on 12.04.2020 i.e. the date of proposed marriage that is also not disputed.  The only issue therefore is as to whether this amount is refundable or not.  It is settled principal of law that pleadings howsoever are strong may be cannot take place of prove and since the OP has not come forward to file his evidence by way of affidavit, his pleadings i.e. the contents of Written Statement cannot be appreciated for the purpose of his contention except those facts which are admitted by him.
10.  Therefore, the admission of the OP that it received Rs.2,70,000/- from the Complainant can be looked into being admission.  The other contention that it was an Earnest Money or not an advance, or that the OP suffered a loss of Rs.9,10,000/- cannot be appreciated for the purpose of defense of the OP being there is no evidence filed by the OP on this account.  The Complainant on the other hand has been able to prove that he paid the amount of Rs.2,70,000/- and the marriage of the Son could not be solemnized only on account of nationwide lockdown and not because of any act of the complaint.  Therefore, the Commission is of the considered opinion that OP was deficient in service in not refunding the amount.  Further, looking from the another angle the OP admittedly has not forfeited the amount nor he himself has acted on his own terms and conditions where the amount is allegedly ‘not refundable’ is written as the OP himself has given a credit note to the Complainant for utilizing the deposited amount upto particular date.  Therefore, on the date i.e. when the marriage was to be solemnized or on the date when he wrote such letter to the Complainant, he had not forfeited the amount.  Therefore, looking from this angle also, the OP has to refund the amount. 
11. Therefore, the Commission hereby orders as follows:

• OP to pay an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit the amount.
• OP would also pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-  to the complainant including litigation charges. 

 

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and if this order is not complied as directed, then OP would pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual payment.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 05.05.2023