SUBHASH KHURANA vs SATYAPRAKASH SETHI

-ON account of having denied service of banquet hall which was booked by the respondent for the marriage of his daughter against advance payment of Rs. 20,000 the appellant who is the owner of the Banquet Hall has been vide impugned order dated 8.5.2007, passed by the District Forum directed to refund the said amount and pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as litigation charges.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Case of the respondent, in brief, was that he booked Lajwaab Bonquet Hall for the marriage of his daugher in July 2006. The booking was done through relative Shri Sumit Kapoor. The marriage was to be take place on 10.12.2006. After a month from the date of booking, the respondent came to know that due to sealing, functions in the area are banned. He asked for refund of the money. Appellant promised to provide suitable place for marriage either at Noida or Ghaziabad. Respondent did not agree for that. Appellant promised to refund the money but inspite of various visits, appellant had not refunded the money. He prayed for directions to appellant to refund the money with cost and compensation.

As against this the appellant denied the booking of bonquet hall for 10.12.2006 by the respondent or by any one on behalf the respondent. He pleaded that bonquet hall was functional on 10.12.2006 as per notification and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

WE have perused the impugned order and find that the District Forum has relied upon the receipt dated 20.7.2006 produced by the respondent showing that the hall was booked for 10.12.2006. So far as the payment of Rs. 20,000 the receipt produced shows other details also, for instance rate was @ Rs. 315 + 3% S.C., D.J. by party. Power package @ Rs. 8,000. Gate/stage/vedio/Jaimala/Milni etc. The appellant has not disclosed as to from whom he has received the advance of Rs. 20,000 if not from the respondent. Record further shows that respondent had even approached police station on 16.11.2006 but the Duty Officer at the Police Station did not take any action. Aforesaid documents as well as the finding of fact returned by the District Forum do not call for any interference.

APPEAL is dismissed. Impugned order shall be complied with, within one month of the receipt of this order. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.

A copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Appeal dismissed.