JYOTIPRASAD RAMANAND SHARMA vs Omprakash Agrawal

BOTH these appeals arise from order dated 1st May, 2001 rendered by the learned Ahmedabad City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 1374/1998. Appeal No. 683/2001 has been filed by the original complainant and Appeal No. 889/2002 has been filed by the original opponent.

IMPUGNED order would read as under : "The opponent is hereby directed to refund the unpaid booking amount of Rs. 5,600/- to the complainant without interest and further the opponent is directed to pay Rs. 500/- for cost of this litigation to the complainant. The opponent is directed to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

It was the complainant''s case that he had booked a hall belonging to the opponent Trust managed by the opponent Shri Omprakash Agrawal, for the marriage of his daughter to be solemnized on 21st November, 1997. He paid the charges in all Rs. 11,200/- well in advance on 9.8.1997. For the reasons set out in the complaint he was required to have the booking of the hall cancelled. He accordingly applied to the opponent on 20.10.1997. The complainant asked for full refund of Rs. 11,200/-. It was his case that while booking the hall no rules and regulations were shown to him. He had no occasion to agree to any of the rules and regulations which the opponent later on referred to. Yet, the opponent allotted the hall for marriage on the same date i.e., 21.11.1997 to one Mr. C.B. Pandey for the marriage of his son and, therefore, there was no loss to the opponent. Upon repeated request the opponent paid Rs. 5,600/- to the complainant. He was called for the refund of the balance amount after a fortnight. When he went to collect the balance amount on 31.12.1997, the opponent refused to pay any amount. It was the complainant''s case that the opponent''s say that the amount of Rs. 5,600/- which was received by him was in full and final settlement was not true and the endorsement made on his cancellation letter indicating such payment was not made by him. The complainant, therefore, approached the learned Forum claiming for the balance amount from the opponent by filing the aforesaid complaint. He also prayed for interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

After considering the defence of the opponent that under the relevant rules the opponent was entitled to forfeit the whole amount and the complainant was not entitled to claim any amount of the booking as also the defence that the complainant was given 50 per cent of the amount as refund in full and final settlement of his claim under the demand, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that such defence was not established. However, since the opponent was representing a Public Charitable Trust, the learned Forum did not proceed to award any interest. It is this order which has been subjected to challenge by both the parties.

WE have heard the learned Advocate for the original complainant. No one is present on behalf of the original opponent. WE have gone through the memorandum of appeal filed by the original opponent. It is his stand that the refund, which was given by the opponent, was ex-gratia payment. Now before this Commission such a contention taken by the opponent cannot be countenanced in this appeal. WE have gone through the endorsement with regard to full and final settlement alleged to have been made by the complainant on his demand notice. From the Xerox copy shown by the complainant''s learned Advocate the appellant''s endorsement is clearly indicating the words ''full and final settlement'' are in different hand from the other part of the endorsement. Apart from all these circumstances it is clear that the opponent is not put to any loss in respect of on the date on which the complainant got the hall booked. The other marriage occasion was scheduled on the same day and it is not the case of the opponent that the opponents had any occasion to sustain loss or to receive any amount less than the amount which was paid by the complainant at the time of booking of the hall. Bearing in mind all these circumstances and having gone through the memorandum of appeal we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the opponent. For the reasons noted above we also do not propose to accept the submissions made on behalf of the complainant with regard to interest. It is not in dispute that the opponent has been representing a Public Charitable Trust. Besides, it was the complainant who had to get back from the contract of booking in question. It is a different matter that on the date on which the hall was booked, other marriage occasion saw the light of the day. In our considered opinion the learned Forum has rightly exercised its discretion in not awarding interest under such circumstances. Following order is, therefore, passed : Both these appeals are dismissed with no order as to cost. Appeals dismissed.