Venue Owner Not Obligated To Refund Advance In Case Of Late Cancellation: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that venue owners are not obligated to refund the advance amount in case of late cancellations even if the reasons are genuine because securing a booking prevents the owner from taking new bookings, which results in a loss. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant booked the Kundan...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that venue owners are not obligated to refund the advance amount in case of late cancellations even if the reasons are genuine because securing a booking prevents the owner from taking new bookings, which results in a loss.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant booked the Kundan Palace Marriage Hall/venue hall for his daughter's wedding ceremony, paying an advance of Rs. 25,000. Due to the demise of the son-in-law's grandfather, the wedding was postponed, and the complainant informed the venue hall verbally and followed up with a written notice. Despite assurances from the venue hall to refund the advance within 15 days, they failed to do so. The complainant then sent a legal notice through their advocate, but the venue hall falsely claimed that only Rs. 4,500 was deposited and issued a receipt with no mention of the complainant's name, despite having received Rs. 25,000 in advance. The venue hall did not refund the advance amount despite legal notices, so the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum, which allowed the complaint and directed the venue hall to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 along with 9% interest. Aggrieved by the District Forum's order, the venue hall appealed to the State Commission, but the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the venue hall filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The venue hall contended that the State Commission overlooked the terms and conditions specified on the back of the receipt, which explicitly stated that the deposit amount would not be refunded in the event of cancellation. Additionally, the State Commission neglected to thoroughly examine the application form, where inconsistencies were noted regarding the deposited amount. It was revealed that the complainant manipulated the form to reflect a higher deposit, misleading the lower forums and ultimately influencing the State Commission's decision.
Observations by the Commission
The commission observed that standard conditions about the non-refundability of the advance paid were fair, as late cancellations prevent the owner from securing a new booking, causing a loss. The commission highlighted that the complainant did not claim the venue was re-booked after their cancellation, so the venue owner was entitled to retain the advance amount. The commission reviewed the conditions on the back of the receipt, where condition No. 9 clearly stated that the rental amount was not refundable under any circumstances. The complainant did not provide a receipt for the Rs. 25,000 they claimed to have paid as a booking amount. Additionally, the document produced by the complainant merely mentioned “25 deposited” in handwriting, which was insufficient to conclude that Rs. 25,000 had indeed been deposited. Nonetheless, the commission held that given the long retention of the booking and the last-minute cancellation, the venue owner was not obligated to refund the booking amount, even if the cancellation reason was genuine. This was consistent with the standard conditions on the receipt and common practice in the sector. Therefore, the District Forum's decision to allow the complaint and the State Commission's decision to dismiss the appeal was incorrect. The State Commission's order was set aside, the complaint was dismissed, and the revision petition was allowed accordingly.
Case Title: Kundan Palace Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra
Case Number: R.P. No. 548/2021