Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava,
President & Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member
SURINDER KUMAR—Appellant
versus
BABA MAKHAN SHAH LOBANA FOUNDATION—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 681 of 2003—Decided on 2.1.2004
For the Appellant : Mr. Gurdial Singh and Mr. Balwant Singh Malhi,
Advocates.
For the Respondent: None.
The court emphasized the definitions of 'service,' 'deficiency,' and 'unfair trade practice' under the Consumer Protection Act and highlighted the burden of proving deficiency in service and the distinction between deficiency in service and tortuous acts.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Refund of Advance Amount - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Fact of the Case:
The appellant booked a hall for a reception but later canceled the booking due to a family emergency. The respondent declined to refund the advance amount based on a specific condition in the terms and conditions of booking.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum dismissed the complaint, citing the specific condition in the terms and conditions of booking. The court, however, found the reasons for dismissal to be self-contradictory and failed to consider the appellant's claim of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent's refusal to refund the advance amount constituted deficiency in service or unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the District Forum failed to consider and decide the appellant's claim of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice according to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The court emphasized the definitions of 'service,' 'deficiency,' and 'unfair trade practice' under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint case was remanded to the District Forum for decision afresh according to law.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President-This is an appeal filed against order dated 4.9.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 1016 of 2002, Surinder Kumar v. Baba Makhan Shah Lobana Foundation, Chandigarh.
2. The complainant who is the appellant before us got booking of Baba Makhan Shah Lobana Foundation Hall for celebration of reception on the eve of marriage of his son. The date for which the booking was got done was 10.12.2001. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash as an advance for booking purposes against receipt (Annexure C-1) dated 29.8.2001. The appellant, somehow, decided to cancel the booking as his mother was ill and sent a letter in this regard in the month of October 2001. The appellant also sought refund of the advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was, however, declined by the respondent on the ground that Condition No. 11 of the terms and conditions of booking did not permit the refund of the advance money in case the booking was got cancelled.
3. The respondent, on the other hand, permitted the appellant to use the hall against earlier booking up to 31.1.2003 but the appellant requested for the refund of the amount as he did not require the hall for the purpose aforesaid. Since the respondent failed to refund the advance amount, the complaint was filed seeking refund of the advance amount of Rs. 10,000/-.
4. The respondent/O.P. filed written statement and admitted about the booking of the hall in connection with the solemnization of the function relating to the marriage of his son for 10.12.2001. The respondent took a plea that the advance amount was deposited by the appellant on reading the terms and conditions including the Condition No. 11. The allegations of deficiency in service on the part of respondent were denied.
5. The complainant filed his affidavit while respondent filed affidavit of Shri Jagat Singh Multai, General Secretary of the respondent. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that it could not declare Condition No. 11 of the terms and conditions as ultra vires and, consequently, no relief could be given to the complainant. However, the complainant was left to seek his remedy before the Competent Authority for redressal of his grievances.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order of the District Forum, this appeal has been filed. The notice of appeal was served on the respondent who put in appearance through Mr. Balwant Singh Malhi, Advocate. Record of the case was also summoned. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order and the record of the case carefully.
7. A perusal of the impugned order will go to show that the District Forum was of the view that when the hall was not used by the complainant and prior intimation was given for cancellation of the booking, the complainant was required not to be charged for the services which were not utilised. The District Forum, however, held that in view of Condition No. 11 of the terms and conditions, the District Forum could not declare it ultra vires and no relief could be granted by it. Resultantly, the complaint was dismissed.
8. As mentioned above, the complainant was relegated to his remedy of approaching a competent authority/Court for redressal of his grievance.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently in the case of CCI Chambers Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd., III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC), held that merely because recording of evidence is required or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the C.P. Act to the person aggrieved. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that it is only when the dispute arising for adjudication is such as would req
