IMPORTANT POINT
Marriage Hall owner cannot be made to suffer loss due to personal problems of customer.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 21.08.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.A/16/3013 in which order dated 29.09.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 121 of 2016 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside impugned order dated 21.08.2018 in Appeal No.A/16/3013.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Petitioner was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA No.A/16/3013 before the State Commission the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in the CC No. 121/2016. For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 22.01.2019. Petitioner filed their Written Arguments/Synopsis on 11.01.2023 and on 09.08.2023, the Respondent file his written arguments on 09.12.2022.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that on 25.08.2015, the Complainant booked marriage Hall of the OP (Petitioner herein) for the purpose of marriage of his daughter scheduled on 20.01.2016. At the time of booking the OP specifically pointed out in the conditions that out of total booking amount, 85% advance amount has to be deposited and also made clear that the advance amount shall not be refunded, if the booking is cancelled. On 25.08.2015, after considering the specific conditions of booking and cancellation of the marriage hall, the Complainant paid some amount for the purpose of booking of the marriage hall and thereafter, the OP issued separate receipts to the Complainant. On 01.11.2015, the complainant cancelled the booking of marriage hall with the OP on the ground of family problems. The complainant specifically agreed for using the said booking to other persons and also signed before the OP. On 15.01.2016, the complainant sent notice to the OP and sought refund of the advance amount. The complainant, without any reply from the OP, filed complaint CC/121/2016 before the District Forum on 29.04.2016.

4. Vide Order dated 29.09.2016 in the CC no. 121 of 2016 the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund the amount of Rs.85,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% from 25.08.2015 till 25.03.2016. The District Forum also ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards expenses of Complaint, within 45 days from the date of order.

5. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 29.09.2016 of District Forum, OP appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 21.08.2018 in FA No. A/16/3013 has modified the order passed by the District Forum and passed the following order:—

“[1] Impugned judgment and order dated 29/09/2016 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/16/121 is modified as under:—

Appellant (original opponent) is entitled to retain or detain 15% amount of the amount advanced by the complainant. Rest of the amount shall be refunded to the complainant together with interest thereon @ 9% from the date of deposit till realization of the amount by the complainant along with litigation costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the learned District Forum below.

[2] Appeal is disposed off accordingly.”

6. OP (Petitioner herein) has challenged the said Order dated 21.08.2018 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—

(i) The Petitioner is a cultural hall. It specifically notif