PRINTED ENTRIES ON RECEIPTS ISSUED BY SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE NOT BINDING ON PARTIES BUT WILL BE CONSIDERED TO THE EXTENT THAT A PRUDENT MAN WOULD HAVE CONSENTED TO THEM.

Mr. Justice David Annoussamy, President—The opposite party appeals.

2. The facts of the case are as follows : The complainants booked the marriage hall belonging to the opposite party for two days from 4.12.1996 noon to 6.12.1996 noon and paid an amount of Rs. 16,001/- on 11.9.1996. The marriage had to be cancelled and the complainants informed the opposite party of the same and cancelled the reservation. After cancellation the complainants asked the opposite party to refund the amount of advance paid by him. Upon the refusal of the opposite party they approached the District Forum with the following prayers :

(1) to refund the entire amount of Rs. 16,001 /- due to the complainants with interest @ 24% interest per annum from 26.10.1996 till the actual date of payment of the entire amount;

(2) to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for suffering the hardship and mental agony.

3. The District Forum after holding that the printed entries in the receipt to the effect that the advance will not be refunded have to be ignored and after observing that the hall was booked after cancellation by some other party, directed the opposite party to refund the entire amount paid by complainants with interest @ 12% p.a. from 26.10.1996 till the payment by order dated 30.6.1997.

4. Aggrieved by that order the opposite party has filed this present appeal.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the complainants are not consumers, that there is no deficiency in service and that the phrase "advance will not be refunded" is immediately before the signature of the complainants in the receipt for the advance amount issued by the opposite party, that there- fore the complainants have accepted to forgo the advance in case of cancellation.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice that the District Forum held that the hall was booked after cancellation by the complainants by some other party and pointed out that such booking by another party was for only one day, whereas the booking by the complainants was for two days.

7. The first ground of appeal is one relating to jurisdiction. The contention is that the prayer is one for return of advance amount and that there is no deficiency in service. The fact of leasing out a marriage hall to people would obviously constitute a service. In that connection the opposite party has received some amount of money. That money can be appropriated only in accordance with law. Otherwise there would be a deficiency in service. As this point was not pressed much we need not elaborate further.

8. The main contention of the appellant is that the complainants have relinquished their right to recover the advance by their signature under the printed mention in the receipt "advance will not be refunded". This raises the question as to the value to be attached to printed entries in documents issued by the seller of goods and producer of services. It is now settled law that printed entries on such document will not be binding on the parties and they will also not be altogether ignored. Entries will be taken into account to the extent that any prudent man would have given a consent thereto in the circumstances of the case. In this connection the first consideration which would be relevant is the fraction of the total dues paid as advance. If a reasonable fraction of the amount due has been paid as advance agreed to by both parties, the amount so paid may be retained in case of cancellation. In this case, the rental for a day is Rs. 15.500/- all inclusive. The amount paid is Rs. 16,001/- viz., roughly half of the total amount. When one pays half of the amount due it cannot be considered as an advance which he has accepted to forgo in case of cancellation. This is clearly a part payment. Therefore, the opposite party cannot claim that he has got the right to retain, the totality of the amount paid.

9. The second consideration which would be relevant is the time at which the cancellation was