Radisson's Failure To Refund Or Offer Alternative Venue For Wedding Deemed Service Deficiency: East Delhi District Commission Orders Booking Refund With Interest
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), led by Mr. S.S. Malhotra along with Mr. Ravi Kumar and Ms. Rashmi Bansal as members, allowed a consumer complaint against "The Country Inn & Suites By Radisson." The complaint was related to a venue booking made for the complainant's daughter's marriage in 2020. The customer contended that, due...
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), led by Mr. S.S. Malhotra along with Mr. Ravi Kumar and Ms. Rashmi Bansal as members, allowed a consumer complaint against "The Country Inn & Suites By Radisson." The complaint was related to a venue booking made for the complainant's daughter's marriage in 2020.
The customer contended that, due to COVID-19-related issues, the wedding had to be postponed. However, Radisson did not refund the advance payment made for the reserved venue. Additionally, when the customer sought an alternative venue for the rescheduled date, Radisson failed to provide one. Consequently, the Commission found that Radisson was at fault and ordered it to reimburse the customer with Rs. 2,24,000/-, along with 7% annual interest, starting from December 2021.
Brief Facts
Mr. Prashant Sagar Rustogi (Complainant), had booked a wedding venue at "Royal Heritage Banquet" for his daughter's marriage on November 30, 2020, with an advance payment of Rs. 2,80,000/-. But due to COVID-19, the wedding was postponed to December 10, 2020. Prashant requested the venue to be changed to a smaller hall, "Majestic Hall," but there was no response.
According to the complaint, Radisson had initially agreed to change the venue to the "Majestic Hall" but later confirmed the booking for the original hall, "Royal Heritage Hall," with a larger capacity and higher cost. Prashant insisted on the smaller hall but received no satisfactory response. He was eventually informed that all venues were sold out for the rescheduled date. As a result, Prashant Sagar had to book a different venue, incurring additional costs. He further argued that the terms of the contract, especially the clause stating that the earnest money deposited was non-refundable, were heavily loaded in favor of the Hotel and amounted to unfair trade practices. Therefore, Prashant filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund of the advance payment along with compensation for hardship, and litigation costs.
Arguments by The Country Inn & Suites By Radisson
The Country Inn & Suites By Radisson contended that there was no signed agreement or document to confirm the change in the venue to the "Majestic Hall." Instead, they relied on an agreement dated 11 November 2020, which stated that the earnest money deposited was non-refundable. Radisson claimed that the complainant had violated the terms of the agreement by conducting the wedding at a different venue. They argued that the complainant had no intention to conduct the function at their venue and was merely seeking a refund.
Observations of the Commission
The East Delhi District Commission took note of key issues in the case. Firstly, the commission noted that the complainant requested a change of venue via email without a signed agreement. Secondly, it noted that Radisson relied on an agreement which was not in a proper format and was rather in the shape of a receipt. The Commission stressed that such one-sided Terms and conditions of an Agreement amounted to Unfair Trade Practices.
Finally, the commission concluded that the venue was at fault for deficiency in services, due to the short time gap between the wedding dates and ongoing negotiations. Consequently, "The Country Inn & Suites By Radisson" was ordered to refund Rs. 2,24,000/- along with 7% annual interest from December 2021. If Radisson fails to make the payment within 30 days of receiving the order, it will incur interest at a rate of 9%.
Case Title: Prashant Sagar Rustogi vs The Country Inn & Suites By Radisson