BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.421/2019

DATED ON THIS THE 27^th JUNE 2022

      Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Smt.Lalitha.M.K.,

M.A., B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER  

                        3) Sri Maruthi Vaddar,

                                                B.A., LLB (Special)  - MEMBER

Sri MARUTHI VADDAR,

MEMBER

1. This complaint has been initiated against the OP, directing the OP to return the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- with 24% interest p.a. to the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the complaint and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complaint in a nutshell as hereunder:-

It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant’s sister was fixed on 15.05.2019 and 16.05.2019 and the marriage was decided to perform at OP’s choultry and hence, on 18.12.2018, the complainant went to the office of OP and on enquiry it was revealed that the rent for the choultry was Rs.1,35,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards advance which is not refundable and total amount was Rs.1,45,000/- and when the complainant replied that the rent is very high and hence, the OP has deducted Rs.5,000/- and directed the complainant to pay Rs.1,40,000/- and on that day, the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- as advance and the OP has issued a receipt bearing No.113 on 18.12.2018.

3. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 26.12.2018, the complainant paid Rs.40,000/- and for that the OP has endorsed on the receipt and on 25.04.2019, the complainant paid Rs.70,000/- to the OP and in turn, the OP has endorsed on the receipt and thereby, the complainant had paid Rs.1,40,000/-.
4. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 09.05.2019, the father of the bridegroom was expired and hence, the said marriage was cancelled and then the complainant has personally met the OP and informed about the incident and for that OP replied to come after 10 days and on 12.05.2019, the complainant visited the OP, but the OP has stated to return only the amount of Rs.10,000/- received towards damages and the advance amount which is not refundable, but the complainant insisted for the return of Rs.1,40,000/-.  But, the OP took verbal altercation with the complainant and replied not to return the whole money and told to take whatever action he wishes to take with an intention to have wrongful gain from the complainant, hence it is alleged deficiency of service on the part of OP and hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.
5. After registration of the complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to OP and in response to the notice, the OP has appeared and filed the version.  In his version, the OP alleged that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the said matter is beyond the scope of C.P.Act, 1986 and only Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the same.  The OP has not received the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- from the complainant towards only for rent, the said amount including the floor charges, electricity charges, gas charges and Rs.10,000/- has been paid towards advance and the said amount of Rs.1,30,000/- will includes GST and other taxes payable to the Government. The OP has denied the further averments made the complaint but admitted that on 12.05.2019, the complainant informed the OP about the cancellation of marriage.  But, the OP further alleged that the complainant informed the OP on 12.05.2019 only 3 days before marriage which is scheduled to be held on 15.05.2019 and OP has stated that already taxes to the Government like GST and other taxes were paid and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and hence, pray to dismiss the complaint.
6. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.  The OP has also filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as R.W.1 and got marked certain documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7.
7. Heard the arguments of complainant and the OP and perused the documents placed on the record.
8. The points that would arise for our consideration are as here under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and thereby he is entitled to reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

9.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative;

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

10.        Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the complainant has paid Rs.1,40,000/- to the OP towards rent and other expenses for the marriage hall  for the marriage of daughter of his sister which was going to be held on 15.05.2019 and 16.05.2019.  To prove this allegation, the complainant himself has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked certain documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.  Ex.P.1 is the cash paid receipt which showed that the OP has received the amount as alleged in the complaint.  The OP has also admitted the receiving of the amount.  Ex.P.2 is the death certificate of the father of the bridegroom.  Ex.P.3 is the marriage certificate.  Ex.P.4 is the legal notice dated 18.06.2019.  Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are the postal receipts and acknowledgement.  Ex.P.7 is the Aadhar card.  The OP has been examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked the documents Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7 and closed his side.  Ex.R.1 is the cash receipt.  Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.6 cash paid bills. There is a suspicion regarding the genuineness of Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.6.  The learned counsels on behalf of the both parties have vehemently argued the matter by producing some of the citations in support of their claim.  It is crystal clear that the complainant has paid Rs.1,40,000/- as per Ex.P.1 to the OP for the marriage of a daughter of complainant’s sister.  But, on 09.05.2019, the father of the bridegroom was expired as per Ex.P.2 produced by the complainant and hence, the elders have decided to cancel the marriage fixed on 15.05.2019 and 16.05.2019 and complainant decided to take back the amount paid to a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and has produced citation referred by Hon’ble State Commission, Mumbai, Maharastra in 1^st Appeal No.16/2013 delivered in Ramamangala Samskruthika Bhavan Vs Anand Annasaheb Kohli dated 21.08.2018. But, it is the contention of the OP that out of the said amount, he paid Rs.33,000/- to various persons and Rs.35,000/- to prime designers and the complainant has informed the OP on 12.05.2019 only 3 days before the marriage and hence, it is impossible for OP to return the said amount.  After careful consideration of the documents produced by both parties and crux of arguments addressed by both the sides and due consideration of the verdict, it is observed that the incident of death of the father of bridegroom was beyond the control of anybody much less the complainant and marriage programme was cancelled on account of sad demise of father of bride groom.  Therefore, we are of the view that atleast 75% of the amount is required to be refunded to the complainant. Hence, we answer the point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
11. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to refund 75% of the amount to the complainant which was paid by the complainant to the OP together with 10% interest p.a. from the date of payment till its realization.
3. The OP is also hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.4,000/- towards cost of this proceedings, within 2 months from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount will carry 10% interest p.a.
4. The complainant is at liberty to take action against the OP under Section 72 of the C.P.Act, 2019 for non-compliance of this order.
5. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 27^th June, 2022)