Contractual clauses allowing total forfeiture of advance payments upon cancellation of a service are considered unfair trade practices; courts may intervene to ensure equitable refunds, allowing for reasonable administrative deductions while rejecting total retention.

This Appeal came up for final hearing on 21.07.2025 and upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following

ORDER

R. SUBBIAH, J - President

The appellant has come forward with this Appeal challenging the order dated 02.12.2022 made in RBT Consumer Complaint No. 55 of 2022 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ariyalur.

2. The Respondent herein, as Complainant, has filed the Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, praying to issue appropriate direction to the Appellant/Opposite Party to pay the sum of Rs.10,53,000/- paid by him and to award a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the mental agony and financial loss caused to him.

3. According to the Complainant, he approached the Opposite Party and caused enquiries for booking the marriage hall – Rajaj Muthiah Hall at Egmore, for commemorating the marriage of his daughter on 11.02.2016 and 12.02.2016. The Opposite Party also stated that the marriage hall can be booked on 11th and 12th of February 2016 as it is vacant on those dates. Therefore, for the purpose of booking the marriage hall, the Complainant paid Rs.10,83,000/- as advance through a cheque dated 01.07.2015 and the marriage hall was blocked in his name. However, within a few weeks, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party on 27.07.2015 and informed that due to unforeseen circumstances, the marriage of his daughter is called off and therefore, he requested the Opposite Party to return the advance amount. However, by citing the Rules and Regulations in force, the Opposite Party refused to return the amount of Rs.10,83,000/- paid as advance through a letter dated 06.08.2015. The Complainant, reiterating his request to return the advance amount of Rs.10,83,000/-, sent a letter dated 21.08.2015 to the Opposite Party, but no reply was received. The Complainant therefore sent a notice dated 02.11.2015 through his advocate and called upon the Opposite Party to return the advance amount. However, there was neither any reply nor the advance amount was returned and therefore, the Complainant has filed the Consumer Complaint.

4. On notice, the Opposite party filed a written version stating that the Respondent has signed an agreement for booking the marriage hall vide Register No.60/15-16 dated 01.07.2015 agreeing to the Rules and Regulations which are in force. In clause 3, it was clearly stated that no refund of the money paid will be made in case of cancellation except the refundable deposit amount. The Respondent/Complainant, having signed such an agreement, is estopped from demanding the return of the entire advance amount. The Respondent/Complainant is fully aware of the consequences of the cancellation of the marriage hall and therefore he is not entitled for refund of the amount. The contract between the parties will bind the complainant and he has to face the consequences of cancellation. The said provision was agreed between the parties and therefore, the claim for refund of the advance amount is not justifiable. In fact, instead of returning the entire amount, the Opposite Party permitted the complainant to book the marriage hall on any other date, however, the complainant only wanted the refund of money. The alleged damages claimed by the complainant are not legally sustainable as it is due to his own personal problem with the commemoration of the marriage of his daughter. While so, the Opposite Party is not in any manner liable or responsible for payment of damages to the alleged f