Mr. Jasbir Singh, Member—The present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Miss Sonia and another against the order of the District Forum, Bathinda dated January 10, 1997 whereby the District Forum has directed the opposite party to refund to the complainant Rs. 1,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 25.8.1996 till the date of payment and to pay Rs. 4,830/- as costs of setting up of the stage and Rs. 4,200/- paid to the photographer and compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. The opposite party has also been directed to pay Rs. 500/- as costs.

2. Brief facts : The marriage of the daughter of the complainant was to be celebrated on 20.9.1996 at Dhillon Marriage Palace, Bathinda. On 25.8.1996 he booked the opposite parties dancers to give dance performance on 20.9.1996 at 9.00 p.m. in the Dhillon Marriage Palace at Bathinda to entertain the marriage party. The services of the opposite parties were hired for a consideration of Rs. 3,500/- out of which Rs. 1,000/- were paid as an advance. As alleged the complainant set up a stage at the cost of above Rs. 5,000/- in the Dhillon Marriage Palace where the opposite parties were to give the performance. For that purpose, the complainant also hired the services of the photographer at the cost of about Rs. 4,000/- who was to prepare the video film of the dance programme. But on the appointed day, the opposite parties did not turn up to give the said dance performance and instead gave the dance performance at some other place. Due to that act of the opposite parties, the complainant was disgraced in the eyes of the gathering which included friends and relatives, as a result of which the complainant suffered mental tension and agony and also suffered financial loss by arranging the photographer and setting up a stage. The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs.

3. The opposite parties refused to accept the notice and the ex parte proceedings were taken against them. The complainant led the evidence on affidavits and documents which resulted in passing the impugned order.

4. In appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants admitted that the appellants are dancers. It is also admitted that the respondent approached to the father of the appellants and asked him to book the appellants for giving dance performance at the marriage of the respondent’s daughter. In appeal, it is stated that the father of the appellants did not book the appellants for performance instead conveyed the booking was to be done through the Chandni Orchestra and the appellants were already booked for two other marriage programmes through Chandni Orchestra for 20.9.1996. It was also explained that the appellants were not in a position to give performance without Orchestra Party. It has also been asserted that the appellants father refused to send his daughters for security reasons also.

5. We have gone through the complaint as well as affidavits and documents filed by the complainant/respondent and have heard the Counsel for the parties both on facts and on legal proposition. Dance performance given by professional dancers is nothing but rendering of service for consideration and if there is deficiency in rendering such service, complaint can be filed before the FORA within its jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act for the necessary relief. The complainant is a consumer as defined. Section 2(1)(d) defines the “consumer” as under :

“consumer” means any reason who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not includes a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) {hires or avails of} any