Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
30th day of November 2022
CC 689/19 filed on 19/12/19
Complainant : Smt. K.V. Sanjana Sudhir, NIDA Heights Apartments,
Thuthiyoor, Kochi – 682 037.
(By Adv. Reena John N., Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1) The Managing Director, Kanoos Residency,
Guruvayoor, Trichur – 680 101.
2) The CEO, Kanoos Residency, Guruvayoor,
Trichur – 680 101.
3) Kanoos Residency, East Nada, Guruvayoor,
Trichur – 680 101.
(Ex-parte)
F I N A L O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- The summary of complaint, as averred :
The complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, who is statedly an IT Professional, booked the 3rd opposite party Hotel for conducting the marriage of her sister which was scheduled to be held on 19/05/2019. The 1st and the 2nd opposite parties are respectively the Managing Director and the CEO of the 3rd opposite party Hotel. The total expense as agreed upon by the opposite parties towards facilitating the conduct of the marriage including rooms, food and auditorium, Mandapam decoration etc. was statedly Rs.2,55,000/-, out of which an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred online to the account of the opposite parties, as requested by the opposite parties. The complainant states that the opposite parties have assured the said sum to be refundable. The scheduled marriage was eventually cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances, information in respect of which was passed to the 2nd opposite party over phone by the complainant, on 05/04/19. An email was also sent in this regard to the 2nd opposite party on 30/04/19, wherein the complainant had also requested refund of the advance amount Rs.1,00,000/- which she paid. In the absence of reply from the opposite parties, the complainant further pursued the matter but in vain, through another email dtd.01/05/19 and also through registered letter sent on 07/05/19. The said registered letter was claimed to have been returned “unclaimed”. A lawyer notice issued to the opposite parties also statedly elicited no result, though the receipt of the same was duly acknowledged by the 1st & the 3rd opposite parties. Lawyer notice to the 2nd opposite party was statedly returned “unclaimed”. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the advance amount she paid, apart from other reliefs of cost.
2) NOTICE :
Commission issued notice to all the opposite parties. The opposite parties have neither entered appearance nor cared to file their version before the Commission, despite their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect. Hence proceedings against the opposite parties were set ex-parte.
- Evidence :
The complainant produced documental evidence that had been marked Exts. A1 to A9, apart from proof affidavit and notes of argument. The proceedings against the opposite parties being ex-parte, no evidence produced from their part.
4) Deliberation of evidence and facts of the case :
The Commission has very carefully examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. A1 is print out of the opposite parties’ email dtd.12/01/19 addressed to the complainant. Ext. A2 is print out of opposite parties’ email dtd. 15/01/22 addressed to the complainant. Ext. A3 is print out of the opposite parties’ email dtd.16/01/19 addressed to the complainant. Ext. A4 is print out of the complainant’s email dtd. 30/04/19 addressed to the 2nd opposite party. Ext. A5 is print out of the complainant’s email dtd. 01/05/19 to the opposite parties. Ext. A6 is copy of the complainant’s letter dtd. 07/05/19 addressed to the 2nd opposite party. Ext. A7 is the Postal envelope addressed to the 2nd opposite party that was returned to the complainant with postal endorsement “unclaimed”. Ext. A8 is copy of the lawyer notice dtd. 25/07/19. Ext. A9 is a folded letter addressed to the 2nd opposite party that was returned to the lawyer with postal endorsement “unclaimed”.
5) Points of deliberation :
(i) Whether the act of the opposite parties is tantamount to unfair trade
practice or whether the complainant is entitled to refund, as prayed
for ?
(ii) Costs ?
6) Point No.(i)
Ext. A3 email sent by the opposite parties is revelatory of their having received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant towards “19th May wedding event advance”. The cancellation policy elaborated under both Exts. A1 & A2 email sent by the opposite parties makes it abundantly clear that intimation of cancellation of reservation before 48 hours would avoid cancellation / no show charges. In the case at hand, the marriage was scheduled to be held on 19/05/19. The complainant’s Exts. A4 & A5 emails addressed to the opposite parties intimating them of the cancellation of reservation and requesting the consequent refund of advance, were dtd.30/04/19 & 01/05/19, respectively, i.e. more than a fortnight ahead of the scheduled date of event / marriage. The complainant’s attempt to communicate the matter black & white to the 2nd opposite party, by a registered letter posted on 07/05/19, apparently was aborted by the 2nd opposite party by declining to accept the same, as evidenced by Ext. A7 Postal Envelope with postal endorsement to that effect. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we find no reason to disbelieve the contentions raised by the complainant. The opposite parties are morally and legally bound to refund to the complainant, the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- she paid. The opposite parties’ abstinence from refunding the same, is evidently an unfair trade practice. The opposite parties have adopted the deceptive practice of unfair enrichment. The complainant is entitled to receive the refund of the advance amount Rs.1,00,000/- that she paid to the opposite parties.
Moreover the opposite parties have not even cared to contest the complaint or to file their written version before the Commission, in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect. This recalcitrant and neglectful demeanour of the opposite parties unveils their blatant disregard to the process of law. The opposite parties’ conscious failure to submit their written version amounts to admission of the allegations levelled against them by the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission expressed the same view by its order dtd. 09/10/17 in RP579/2017 [2017 (4)] CPR 590.
7) Point No.(ii) :
The complainant is also entitled to receive from the opposite parties a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to
- refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and,
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs,
all with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The opposite parties shall comply with the above direction within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 print out of the opposite parties’ email dtd.12/01/19 addressed to the
complainant.
Ext. A2 print out of opposite parties’ email dtd. 15/01/22 addressed to the
complainant.
Ext. A3 print out of the opposite parties’ email dtd.16/01/19 addressed to the
complainant.
Ext. A4 print out of the complainant’s email dtd. 30/04/19 addressed to the
2nd opposite party.
Ext. A5 print out of the complainant’s email dtd. 01/05/19 to the opposite
parties.
Ext. A6 copy of the complainant’s letter dtd. 07/05/19 addressed to the 2nd
opposite party.
Ext. A7 Postal envelope addressed to the 2nd opposite party that was returned to
the complainant with postal endorsement “unclaimed”.
Ext. A8 copy of the lawyer notice dtd. 25/07/19.
Ext. A9 is a folded letter addressed to the 2nd opposite party that was returned
to the lawyer with postal endorsement “unclaimed”.
Id/-
