Consumer forum penalises wedding hall owner in Vashi
MDT/PTI 26 December 2012

Besides the refund of Rs50,000, the consumer forum also directed the owner of Imperial Banquet Hall in Vashi to pay a fine of Rs10,000 to the complainant and also legal expenses of Rs2,000

Thane: Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed owner of a wedding hall in Vashi in Navi Mumbai to refund Rs50,000 to a man, who had to cancel the venue, which he had booked for his daughter's marriage reception ceremony in 2009, reports PTI.

 

Besides the refund, the forum also directed the owner of the hall to pay a fine of Rs10,000 to the complainant and also legal expenses of Rs2,000. All the payment has to be done within 45 days, it said.

 

The complainants, Narendra Kalra and his daughter Harsha Kalra, in their complaint stated that they had made an advance payment of Rs50,000 on 22 April 2009 to Kambala Hospitality Pvt Ltd that runs Imperial Banquet Hall in Vashi.

 

However, the complainant, who is a tax consultant, told the court that the marriage could not materialise due to some reasons and the reception function had to be cancelled, about which he had informed to the hall owners "well in advance".

 

Kalra alleged that despite his repeated calls, the hall owner did not respond and when finally he did, the latter told the Kalras that the amount would be adjusted against the booking made by any of the complainant's acquaintances in future.

 

In 2010, when one of Kalra's friends booked the hall, the owner initially agreed to adjust the amount. However, just a day before the ceremony, he backed off and demanded money saying their advance would not be adjusted. Following this, Kalra approached the forum.

 

In its order, the forum observed that the owner of the hall should have cooperated and refunded the money to the complainants. The forum expressed a view that he should have explained the conditions and also got them printed in the form of a booklet.

 

"By confiscating the advance amount and misleading the consumer, the respondent has violated section 2(1)(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986," the forum said.

Comments
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback