CHHOTU RAM MEMORIAL SOCIETY vs NAND LAL MALHOTRA

CHHOTU Ram Memorial Society, Rohtak, has come up in appeal against the order dated 10.9.1997 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Rohtak, whereby the complaint of one Nand Lal Malhotra, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Society, in the matter of hiring of the premises for the purpose of his daughter''s marriage and refunding the rental thereof due to non-utilisation of the premises, has been allowed.

THE complainant had approached the learned District Consumer Forum with the grievance that he had booked on 24.4.1995 the Chhotu Ram Memorial Hall of the opposite party alongwith certain rooms by paying Rs. 4,150/- in advance for 7.10.1995 for the marriage of his daughter. Since the Rohtak town was flooded with water on 4.9.1997 and the Chhotu Ram Park and Dharam Shala were under flood waters, the opposite party expressed its inability to provide the aforesaid premises on 7.10.1995.THEreupon, the complainant made alternative arrangement by booking the Capital Banquets, Radha Chambers, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, by depositing the extra amount. THEreafter, as the Society refused to refund the amount paid by the complainant at the time of booking the Hall, the complainant claimed the same alongwith interest and costs etc. THE learned District Consumer Forum, finding merit in the complaint and after appreciation of evidence produced by the parties, allowed the complaint by ordering the refund of Rs. 4,150/- by the Society to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% a.m. with effect from 8.10.1995. In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the floods could not be foreseen by the Society and if the complainant had to make alternative arrangements for the marriage of his daughter at New Delhi, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Society.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The question for determination is not whether the complainant had to be compensated for the amount spent by him for making the alternative arrangements due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Society, but the limited relief sought by the complainant and granted by the learned District Consumer Forum is, the refund of the amount deposited by him with the Society by way of booking charges in advance for hiring the premises, which however later on could not be provided by the Society due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, we have no hesitation in disposing of the appeal by modifying the direction issued by the learned District Consumer Forum to the extent that the principal amount deposited by the complainant alone shall be refunded by the Society, i.e. without any interest thereon, which shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.