ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—This First Appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.2015, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Complaint Case No. 2/2010. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has partly allowed the Complaint, preferred the Complainant/Respondent No.1 herein, directing:- (i) all the three Opposite Parties, including the Appellants herein, who were Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, to jointly and severally refund the sum of Rs.35,000/- received from the Complainant/Respondent No.1 for booking the marriage hall; and (ii) Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 (Appellants herein) to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs as compensation for the loss suffered by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 on account of non-performance of the marriage in their marriage hall, sum of Rs.10.00 Lakhs as compensation for mental agony and distress suffered by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 and Rs.20,000/- as costs, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the Order, failing which the amounts shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till compliance.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 07.09.2008 by paying an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- the Complainant/Respondent No.1 had booked a marriage hall, known as “Hemraj Palace” for the marriage of his son. The said advance amount was received by Opposite Party No.3 under proper receipt. While Opposite Party No.1 was the Owner of marriage hall and Opposite Party No.2 was the son of Opposite Party No.1, who used to look after the activities of the marriage hall on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.3 was the Manager of the marriage hall. The marriage reception was to be held in the evening of 01.02.2009 and the marriage was to be held in the morning of 02.02.2009. Thereafter, between the period 08.09.2008 and 31.01.2009 a total sum of Rs.83,700/- was also paid by the Complainant/Respondent No.1, which was also received by Opposite Party No.3 on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. While the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid as the rent for the marriage hall, the remaining amount was paid as miscellaneous charges towards decoration, stage arrangement for reception etc. Besides that a sum of Rs.3,43,000/- was spent by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 for catering, video coverage, light, music, Nadaswaram, etc.

3. On 01.02.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. when the Complainant/Respondent No.1 took his cook to the marriage hall, he found that the marriage hall was taken possession by another marriage troupe and cooking was on. When he approached Opposite Parties No. 3 and 2, they refused to return the money and also threatened him. Accordingly, a case was registered with the Chrompet Police Station against the said Opposite Parties. The Inspector unsuccessfully tried to trace the said Opposite Parties and helped the Complainant/Respondent No.1 to search for another marriage hall in the vicinity till 12 p.m. in the midnight of 01.02.2009 but all in vain. The bride’s family got agitated and tried to take away the bride but on the intervention of Complainant’s family and friends, the bride’s family member agreed to perform the marriage at local Karumariamman Temple, which was performed overnight without any facilities. On account of this deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, wherein they had received the rent for the marriage hall for conduct of marriage of the Complainant’s son, knowing well that the marriage hall was already booked for some other marriage, caused irreparable loss and injury apart from mental agony by not performing the marriage with all the ceremonies/festivities. On account of non-performance of the marriage in the marriage hall, not only the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,43,500/-, spent by the Complainant for arranging catering, video coverage, light, music etc., went waste, he also suffered an estimated loss of Rs.1,00,000/-, which