Delhi Consumer Court Rules Against Chhabra Farms for Failing to Refund Advance Payment
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-West Delhi, comprising President Suresh Kumar Gupta and Member Dr. Harshali Kaur, has held that Chhabra Farms was deficient in service for refusing to refund the advance booking amount paid by a complainant who was forced to cancel the booking after failing to receive a clarification on electricity arrangements for the event.
The complainant, represented by his attorney through a special power of attorney, had booked a hall and lawn with Chhabra Farms on 21.05.2017 for the marriage of his daughter scheduled on 05.02.2018. An advance of ₹2,00,000/- was paid for the same. The complainant stated that the farm representatives had informed him that electrification for the function would be through generator sets, as they lacked the required electricity-connected load.
Subsequently, after the Supreme Court judgment and EPCA directive dated 18.10.2017 imposed a complete ban on the use of diesel-run generators in Delhi, the complainant contacted Chhabra Farms to inquire about alternative arrangements for electricity. However, according to him, no clarification was provided. In the absence of a proper response, the complainant was compelled to cancel the booking and sought a refund via an email dated 06.11.2017, followed by a legal notice dated 31.03.2018. When no response was received, a consumer complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In their reply, the opposite parties contested the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that the complainant was not a consumer and had no authority to file the complaint through a power of attorney. They further contended that the appropriate remedy for the complainant would have been to approach a civil court. Emphasizing Clauses 12 and 14 of their prospectus, the opposite parties stated that the advance amount was non-refundable and that in case of cancellation, the entire booking amount was still liable to be paid. They also denied ever informing the complainant about the lack of electricity load and supported their claim with copies of electricity bills generated in the first week of February 2018.
However, the Commission found that the complainant had submitted sufficient documentation to establish the authority of his attorney, thereby satisfying the requirement of locus standi. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Trans Mediterranean Airways vs M/s. Universal Exports and Anr [(2011) SLT 339], the Commission reiterated that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and not barred by the existence of civil remedies.
On merits, the Commission noted that while the opposite parties claimed the complainant cancelled the booking unilaterally, they had not produced any communication or document to show that they addressed the complainant’s concerns or provided an alternative plan after the diesel generator ban. Though they produced electricity bills as evidence, the Commission observed that these documents were not mentioned in their written reply, and hence, could not be considered beyond the pleadings.
Ultimately, the Commission held that the failure of Chhabra Farms to respond to the complainant’s queries regarding power arrangements in light of the diesel generator ban constituted a deficiency in service. Consequently, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund the advance amount of ₹2,00,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from 15.02.2019, the date of filing of the complaint, until realisation. No separate order on costs was passed, with the Commission noting that the awarded interest sufficiently served the ends of justice.
Cause Title: Mnaish Khandelwal V. Chhabra farms & Ors.
Case No: Consumer Complaint No. DC/84/CC/19/8
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta [President], Hon'ble Ms. Harshali Kaur [Member]
[Read/Download order]
