J D Sud vs HARYANA TOURISM CORPORATION LTD

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 11.6.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant -complainant against the respondent -opposite parties has been dismissed.

ACCORDING to the case set up by the complainant, the marriage of his daughter was fixed for 11.12.1999 and in order to organise dinner at Panchkula, Tourist Complex Banquet Hall of opposite party No. 2 was booked through its manager on 19.6.1999. The initial deposit of Rs. 8,000 was made on 11.12.1999 by the complainant. Due to some family reasons, the dinner to be organised at Red Bishop Tourist Complex, had to be cancelled and a letter dated 5.11.1999 intimating cancellation of the booking of the dinner was given to the opposite parties. Thereafter, no response was received by the complainant on this account and amount of Rs. 8,000 was not also refunded to him. Forced by these circumstances, he filed the present complaint seeking refund of deposited amount of Rs. 8,000 along with interest 18%, besides Rs. 10,000 as compensation for harassment caused to him. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed appearance. In their joint written statement, while refuting the stand of the complainant, they pleaded that in terms of the rules of booking and cancellation of the banquet hall, 20% of the minimum guaranteed net business is taken as no refundable advance at the time of the booking of the party and 30% is required to be paid as second non -refundable at least 24 hours before the time of the party and the balance 50% amount is to be recovered at the time of the party. In this case, according to the opposite parties, the complainant had cancelled booking and under the rules, he is not entitled to the refund of Rs. 8,000 deposited with them. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

THE District Forum on appraisal of evidence and pleadings of the parties, dismissed the complaint as per order dated 11.6.2002. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.

NONE has appeared on behalf of the appellant at the time of arguments. Learned Counsel representing the respondents has been heard at length. There is no factual dispute between the parties. The only short question required to be decided is whether the forfeiture of Rs. 8,000 of the advance money, paid by the complainant is permissible under the rules, as pleaded by the opposite parties. The relevant rules for booking and cancellation of the banquet/parties and refund read as under: ''(i) 20% of the minimum guaranteed net business will be taken as no refundable advance at the time of booking of party. (ii) 30% of the minimum guaranteed net business will be taken as second non refundable advance at least 24 hours before the time of party. (iii) Balance 50% amount will be recovered before the start of party. (iv) In case of cancellation advance deposited will be forfeited. (v) Party can be postponed against the same first advance i.e., 20% with a notice of more than 10 days before the party. This concession is allowed only once.''

THE above stated rules leave no manner of doubt that 20% of the minimum guarantee net business was required to be deposited by the complainant, which is taken as non -refundable advance at the time of booking of the party. Therefore, in terms of the above requirements of the Rules Rs. 8,000 was deposited by the complainant. It is admitted by the complainant that booking was got cancelled by him for personal reasons and that being so, the respondents were justified in not refunding the advance amount of Rs. 8,000 to the complainant. It is not the case where any deficiency of service can be attributed to the opposite parties. Thus, we find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the District Forum.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -