Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Advocates
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Advocates
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — F.A.No.362/2014 (Tamil Nadu SCDRC, Chennai)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal was filed under Section 15 read with Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the District Commission, Chennai (North)'s order in C.C.No.197/2011 dated 05.03.2014. The appeal came up for final hearing on 12.11.2021 before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (President: Hon'ble Thiru. Justice R. Subbiah; Member: Tmt. Dr. S.M. Latha Maheswari).

Briefly, the complainant (K.S. Kasi) booked a hall (mandapam) with the appellant/opposite party (Vijay Shreemahal) on 19.05.2010 for a function scheduled on 03–04.10.2010 and paid Rs.2,05,665/-. The appellant issued a receipt only for Rs.60,665/-, while the balance Rs.1,45,000/- was paid in cash (for which no receipt was provided) though a note indicated the total. The complainant's father died on 22.05.2010 and the complainant cancelled the booking on 28.05.2010, seeking refund. The opposite party refused to refund, citing their booking rules and offering rebooking on another date. The complainant approached the District Commission seeking refund of Rs.2,05,665/- with 18% interest from 28.08.2010 and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and costs.

The District Commission allowed the complaint in part: directing refund of Rs.2,05,665/- with interest at 10% per annum from 28.05.2010 until realization; awarding Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; and costs of Rs.2,000/- with default interest at 9% per annum until payment. The opposite party (who is the appellant in this appeal) challenged that order.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the District Commission's direction that the appellant/opposite party refund Rs.2,05,665/- to the complainant is justifiable.
  2. Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in refusing to refund the amount after cancellation.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant / Respondent

  • The complainant booked the hall on 19.05.2010 for a specific event (Sathabishegam) to be held on 03–04.10.2010 and paid the full demanded amount of Rs.2,05,665/-. A receipt was issued only for part of that amount, but a break-up note showed the total paid.
  • After the complainant's father died on 22.05.2010, the complainant cancelled the hall booking on 28.05.2010 (i.e., within 10 days of booking and about four months before the event) and requested refund, but the opposite party refused.
  • The complainant contended that the opposite party's retention of the payment was unjust enrichment, that the booking was specifically for the deceased father's 80th birthday and could not be reused by the complainant for any other purpose, and sought refund with interest and compensation for mental agony and inconvenience.

Opposite Party / Appellant

  • The opposite party denied the complainant's account and contended that the reasons for cancellation were afterthoughts and that the complainant concealed vital facts.
  • They submitted that bookings are made for specific auspicious dates and that cancellation affects their ability to rebook those dates; therefore refund claims are governed by the booking guidelines, rules and regulations which were printed, issued, and accepted by the complainant (signing acknowledged).
  • The opposite party argued there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as the complainant had not utilized the hall and the refund policy/conditions applied; they offered re-booking as an option and sought dismissal of the complaint.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission heard submissions from both sides and reviewed the record, including the booking, receipts, correspondence and the parties' affidavits and exhibits. The bench narrowed the contested points and identified the single determinative question as whether the District Commission was justified in directing refund and finding deficiency in service.

The Commission's analysis relied on the contemporaneous facts the parties themselves established in the record:

  • The booking was made on 19.05.2010 and full payment of Rs.2,05,665/- was collected; a receipt was issued only for Rs.60,665/- though a break-up note reflected the total amount paid.
  • The complainant's father died on 22.05.2010 — within three days of booking — and the complainant cancelled the booking on 28.05.2010, i.e., within 10 days of booking and approximately four months before the scheduled event.
  • The Commission accepted the complainant's uncontested factual position that the hall was booked specifically for the father's Sathabishegam (an event that could not reasonably be reused for another purpose or date), making the opposite party's suggestion of re-using the booking unrealistic.
  • Because the cancellation occurred early (four months before the event) and for an unforeseeable and grave reason (death of the person for whom the event was intended), the appellate bench concluded there was no substantiated inference that the opposite party had suffered an inability to rebook the dates or incurred financial loss that would justify retention of the advance.
  • Given these findings, the appellant's retention of the full payment was characterized by the Commission as amounting to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The District Commission's remedies (refund with interest and modest compensation and costs) were therefore held to be appropriate and proportionate to the facts established on record.

The bench expressly found the District Commission's reasoning "justifiable and reasonable" on the facts and saw no ground to interfere with the order; accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is dismissed and the District Commission, Chennai (North) order in C.C.No.197/2011 dated 05.03.2014 is confirmed.

Implications / Consequences:

  • The appellant/opposite party is required to refund Rs.2,05,665/- to the complainant with interest at 10% per annum from 28.05.2010 until realization (as directed by the District Commission and affirmed by this Commission).
  • The appellant is also required to pay Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and Rs.2,000/- as costs (the District Commission imposed default interest on the costs at 9% per annum until payment).
  • The appellate bench recorded that there shall be no order as to costs in the appeal itself.
  • No broader or novel legal precedent was established or cited in the opinion; the decision rests on the application of the facts to the statutory consumer protection framework as applied by the District Commission and affirmed on appeal.

Judges: Tmt. Dr. S.M. Latha Maheswari (Member) and Hon'ble Thiru. Justice R. Subbiah (President). Date of decision: 12 November 2021.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    VIJAY SHREEMAHAL, PROPRIETOR v. K.S. KASI

    IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

    Present: HON'BLE THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH , PRESIDENT TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MEMBER

    F.A.No.362/2014

    (Against the order passed in C.C.No.197/2011, dated 05.03.2014 on the file of the District Commission, Chennai (North)

    THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.

    VIJAY SHREEMAHAL

    Represented by its Proprietor, P1/1, 3rdAvenue, Anna Nagar, Near K4 Police Station, Chennai - 600 040. Appellant/Opposite Party - Vs -

    K.S. Kasi,

    Mahalakshmi, New No.22,

    Ormes Road, Kilpauk,

    Chennai - 600 010. Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s. M. Kempraj, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s. K.P. Kiran Rao, Advocate. This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 12.11.2021 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

    ORDER

    HON'BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT. (Open Court)

    1

    1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a)

    (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North) made in C.C.No.197/2011, dated 05.03.2014, partly allowing the complaint.

    2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they were ranked in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North).

    3. The brief facts which necessitated the appellant/opposite party to file this appeal is as follows;-

    The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the opposite party is engaged in the business of providing Hall (Mandapam) for conducting different functions on payment of necessary charges. The complainant had booked the hall of the opposite party on 19.05.2010 for one and half days viz., 03.10.2010 to 04.10.2020 for performing Sathabishegam function of his father, Mr.Chokalingam for which the opposite party collected a sum of Rs.2,05,665/- from the complainant towards the Hall charges and service tax. The opposite party insisted that a sum of Rs.60,665/- should be paid by cheque/cash and the balance amount of Rs.1,45,000/- should be paid only by way of cash for which no receipt would be issued. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,05,665/- as demanded by the opposite party and the opposite party issued receipt dated 19.05.2010 only for Rs.60,665/- and gave a note with break-up details for the total charges of Rs.2,05,665/-. Unfortunately, the complainant's father suddenly passed away on 22.05.2010 and hence he had to cancel the booking of the Hall. Accordingly, the complainant cancelled the Hall on 28.05.2010 itself and called upon the opposite party to refund the amount collected from him towards booking the hall vide his letter dated 28.05.2010. The booking was cancelled within 10 days from the date of booking which is almost 4 months prior to the date of event. Therefore, there cannot be any impediment to the opposite party to have a new booking for the Hall. But, instead of honouring the request of the complainant, the opposite party sent a reply with unjustifiable, untenable contentions and regrettably chose to unjustly enrich by retaining the amount of Rs.2,05,665/- paid by the complainant by making some unilateral disclaimer statement. The opposite party strangely asked the complainant to change the date and reuse the booking on some other date to conduct another function. When the opposite party was fully aware of the unfortunate death of the complainant's father and the booking of the Hall was specifically made for the purpose of celebrating his father's 80thbirth anniversary, there was no possibility for the complainant to reuse the hall for some other purpose in any other date. The statement of the opposite party is very insensitive and regrettable. The complainant's family was very much upset at that time and they were shocked and surprised at such unfair and illegal response from the opposite party. His father's untimely death had upset the complainant deeply. However, with a view to maintain cordial relationship and not to precipitate the matter, the complainant once again called upon the opposite party to refund the said amount of Rs.2,05,665/- paid by him vide letter dated 10.10.2011 offering one more last chance to the opposite party to return the money unjustly retained by him for the past one year. But, the opposite party sent a reply dated 28.05.2011 reiterating their earlier stand taken by him and thus the opposite party failed to refund the amount legitimately due to the complainant. Hence, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission with a consumer complaint for a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.2,05,665/- collected from the complainant towards booking of Hall with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 28.08.2010 till the date of realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant with costs.

    4. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing a written version contending inter alia that the allegations of the complainant are false, frivolous and speculative in nature. On 19.05.2010, the complainant had originally booked the marriage hall for performance of function of his father to be held on 03.10.2010 and 04.10.2010 and subsequently cancelled the booking on 28.05.2010. The complainant has concealed certain vital facts regarding the reasons as to why the Hall was cancelled. As per the Hindu Customs, usage and practice, when a function such as Sathabishegam was fixed then the parties would fix the function only on an auspicious day. In the instant case, the complainant booked the opposite party's Marriage Hall on 19.05.2010. But the reasons given by the complainant that the function could not be proceeded with is only an afterthought in order to gain sympathy of this Commission. There is much fuss and confusion on the part of the complainant regarding the booking and the cancellation of Kalyana Mandapam for 03.10.2010 to 04.10.2010. The complainant approached the opposite party on 28.05.2010

    2

    for cancellation of the marriage hall booked for the function for 03.10.2010 and 04.10.2010 and on the very same day the opposite party sent a reply to the complainant drawing his attention to the applicability of refund class and explained the complainant to consider the option of re-booking the marriage hall for any other function in their family on some other convenient date. Booking and cancellation of the Mandapam cannot be done by him as per the complainant's whims and fancies. Marriage halls are booked on certain specific days which are auspicious to the family. Due to the cancellation of Hall, the opposite party was put to inconvenience and financial loss and furthermore they would lose their prospective customers on those specific days for which the complainant is solely responsible. The complainant neither occupied the Kalyana Mandapam nor utilised the facilities provided therein and therefore there is no question of deficiency in service. The complainant is fully aware of the booking of the Kalyana Mandapam and the question of refund of advance amount are in accordance with certain guidelines, rules and regulations since the same were printed and issued to the complainant which were accepted by the complainant by signing on it. Hence, there is no unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.

    5. Before the District Commission, the complainant and the opposite party have filed their respective proof affidavit in support of their case. Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite party. .

    6. Based on the above submissions and analysing the evidences adduced by them, the District Commission allowed the complaint by holding that there is an unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,05,665/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 28.05.2010 till the date of realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party as well as mental agony suffered by the complainant along with cost of Rs.2000/- with default interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment. Aggrieved over the above order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

    7. Heard the submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record. Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully gone through the same. Since we have discussed the facts in detail as above, we refrain from reiterating the same any further in this appeal and only the facts which are germane alone discussed hereunder.

    8. Though very many contentions have been raised by both sides, the only question that has to be decided in this appeal is that whether the order passed by the District Commission in directing the appellant/opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.2,05,665/- is justifiable and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

    9. The complainant booked the Hall on 19.05.2010 to conduct a function of his father's Sathabishegam (80thBirth Anniversary) for 03.10.2010 and 04.10.2010. The opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.2,05,665/- as charges for the Hall. Pursuant to the request made by the opposite party, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.60,665/- by way of cheque/cash and the balance amount of Rs.1,45,000/- was paid by cash and a receipt was issued only for a sum of Rs.60,665/- by the opposite party. In the meantime, the complainant's father died on 22.05.2010 i.e., within three days from the date of booking the Hall and hence the complainant cancelled the booking on 28.05.2010 itself and called upon the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.2,06,665/- collected from the complainant. But, the opposite party refused to refund the amount stating that the question of refund of advance amount are to be made in accordance with the guidelines, rules and regulations specified for booking the Hall which are well known to the complainant as the same were printed and issued to the complainant and accepted by the complainant. But, we are of the opinion that in the instant case the complainant has cancelled the booking within 10 days from the date of booking since his father's death. The complainant had booked the Hall only for the purpose of conducting his father's "Sathapishegam" and in such circumstances expecting the complainant to use the hall for some other purpose in any other day is not proper. Moreover, the complainant had cancelled the booking four months prior to the date of event and hence the question of incurring financial loss also does not arise in this

    3

    case. The conduct of the opposite party in not refunding the amount is nothing but an unfair trade practice. The District Commission has rightly decided the issue and allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest along with compensation. In our view, the order of the District Commission is justifiable and reasonable and therefore there is no need to interfere with the order of the District Commission and therefore, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission.

    10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North) made in C.C.No.197/2011, dated 05.03.2014. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

    S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, R. SUBBIAH,

    MEMBER. PRESIDENT.

    Index: Yes/No

    TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Nov/2021

    4

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    VIJAY SHREEMAHAL, PROPRIETOR v. K.S. KASI
    (Nov 12, 2021)