Lifestyle Wedding Planners, Chandigarh, Ordered To Refund Advance Amount Paid For Decoration Services

Brief Facts:

The dispute arose in the context of the decoration of a banquet hall for Dr. Yatish Kumar Bansal’s (“Complainant”) daughter's wedding, scheduled for 29th and 30th April 2021. The Complainant engaged Lifestyle Wedding Planner (“Wedding Planner”), for the decoration, and as per Hotel The Lalit’s (“Hotel”) instructions. The Complainant paid an advance of ₹56,000 (20% of the total amount) to the Wedding Planner for the decoration services.

Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent imposition of lockdowns and restrictions, the marriage event was canceled. The Complainant promptly communicated the cancellation to both the Wedding Planner and the Hotel through various means, such as emails, messages, and phone calls. However, despite the cancellation and the Complainant's request, the Wedding Planner refused to refund the advance payment of ₹56,000. This prompted the Complainant to file the consumer complaint before the Chandigarh District Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Wedding Planner.

The Wedding Planner did not appear before the District Commission despite proper service. The Hotel contested the complaint, arguing that they were not responsible for the banquet hall decoration, which was exclusively managed by the Wedding Planner. The Hotel claimed that the Complainant's grievance against them lacked merit and should be dismissed.

Observations by the Commission:

Firstly, the District Commission acknowledged that the Hotel's involvement was limited to providing the banquet hall, and there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice proven against the Hotel. Consequently, the complaint against the Hotel was dismissed.

Secondly, regarding the Wedding Planner, the District Commission observed that their absence from the proceedings coupled with evidence established the Complainant's claims. The Complainant proved that the advance payment was made and the event was canceled, but the Wedding Planner refused to refund the amount. Given the prevailing circumstances and the communication of the cancellation, the District Commission deemed the Wedding Planner’s refusal to refund unjustifiable and against fair business practices.

Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favor of the Complainant and ordered the Wedding Planner to refund the advance payment of ₹56,000 along with an interest rate of 9% per annum from the cancellation date (21st April 2021) until realization. In addition, the Wedding Planner was directed to compensate the Complainant with ₹8,000 for mental agony and harassment, and reimburse ₹7,000 as litigation costs.

Case: Dr Yatish Kumar Bansal vs Lifestyle Wedding Planner

Case No.: CC/943/2021

Advocate for the Appellant: Anirudh Gupta

Advocate for the Respondent: OP-1 ex-parte. Sh. Vivek Gupta, Vice Counsel for Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Counsel for OP-2

Click Here To Read/Download Order