Haryana

Panchkula

CC/234/2020

MS.ROMIL GUPTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARUL DUGGAL MAKEUP STUDIO. - Opp.Party(s)

LOKESH JAIN.

27 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	234 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	07.08.2020
Date of Decision	:	27.09.2021

 

 

Ms.Romil Gupta daughter of Shri Dharamraj Garg, resident of House No.907, Sector-12-A, Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     Parul Duggal Makeup Studio, SCO No.2, Ist Floor, Sector-10-D, Chandigarh-160011 through its Prop. Parul Duggal.

2.     Parul Duggal, Prop. Parul Duggal Makeup Studio, resident of House No.87, Sector-10-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Lokesh Jain, Advocate for the complainant.    

                        OPs No. 1 & 2 already ex-parte vide order dated     29.09.2020. 

                                        ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the marriage of the complainant was scheduled to be solemnized on 16.04.2020 and accordingly, the complainant for bridal and party makeup engaged the OPs and the Ops disclosed the charges for both bridal and party makeup as Rs.25,000/- and accordingly, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.19,000/- on 20.12.2019 and Rs.6,000/- on 08.01.2020 in advance. Unfortunately, due to pandemic lockdown due to Covid-19, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had issued notification and instructions that Beauty Parlor, Saloon etc. were not allowed to run during lockdown. Due to the said situation the complainant decided to conduct the marriage in very simple manner in private hence the complainant requested to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- but the OP no.2 instead of refund told the complainant to adjust the said amount in future. Therefore, the complainant has served a legal notice dated 28.05.2020 upon the OPs but all in vain.  Due to the above said act and conduct on the part of the OPs, they have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence,  the present complaint.  

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 & 2 through registered post (vide registered post No.CH063331879IN & CH063331848IN) on 29.09.2020 which were received back with the report of ‘refusal’; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OPs, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 29.09.2020.

3.             To prove her case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 in evidence and close the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the complainant and have gone through the entire record available on record, carefully and minutely.

5.             Evidently, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.19,000/- and Rs.6,000/- with the OP on 20.12.2019 and 08.01.2020 respectively, as per Annexure C-7 and Annexure C-8 for availing the services pertaining to bridal and party make up on or prior to marriage of the complainant, which was scheduled to be solemnized on 16.04.2020. Pertinently, the complete lock down was imposed at the national level on 25.03.2020, due to COVID-19 situation and thus, neither the complainant was in a position to avail the  said services of bridal and party makeup from the Opposite party nor the opposite party was in a position to provide the said services to the complainant. Therefore, no lapse can be attributed to that extent. The grievances of the complainant is that the OP did not refund the aforementioned deposited amount of Rs.25,000/-to the complainant despite several requests made to her through whatshapp chats as well as legal notice (Annexure C-9).

6.             The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure C-A, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-10.

8.             As mentioned above, there is no version of the OP, but we find its version in the shape of whatshapp chat between the parties i.e. complainant and OP, which is available on record in the shape of Annexure C-1 to C-6. As per whatshapp chat, the OP denied to refund the booking amount stating it to be non refundable as per its policy.  It is pertinent to mention here that no such policy entitling the OP to forfeit the booking amount is available on record. As per whatshapp Annexure C-6, the OP asked the complainant to avail the services from them only to the extent of 50% amount of the total deposited amount till 2020, which in our considered opinion is totally unfair, unjust and unreasonable. Therefore, we conclude that the OP has been deficient to rendering the services.

9.     As a result of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and dispose of with the following directions to the OPs:-

                        (i)     To refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant   along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the                                date of filing of this complaint till realization.

(ii)    To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation charges.

 

10.            The OPs shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:27.09.2021

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg           Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                 Member                    Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

   Satpal                                                

 President