Delhi District Commission Holds Chhabra Farms Liable For Non-Refund Of Advance Booking Amount

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta, President and Harshali Kaur, Member has held that refusing to refund the advance booking amount by Chhabra Farms where they failed to answer the queries raised by the complainant client regarding their function amounts to 'deficiency in service'.

Brief facts:

The complainant booked a big hall and lawn with Chhabra Farms ('Farmhouse') on 21.05.2017 for the marriage of his daughter to be held on 05.02.2018 by paying a booking amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

The farmhouse informed the complainant that electrification for the entire function would be done through generator sets since they did not have the required electricity-connected load. Thereafter, the complainant got to know about a Supreme Court order which imposed an absolute ban on diesel-run generators within the precincts of Delhi. The complainant then inquired from the farmhouse for an alternate arrangement of electricity but no clarification was given by them. Hence, the complainant was forced to cancel his booking and sought a refund of the booking amount.

The farmhouse failed to take any steps to resolve the issue. A legal notice dated 31.03.2018 was also issued by the complainant but no reply was received. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for appropriate compensation.

Submissions of the farmhouse:

The counsel for the farmhouse submitted that the complainant should have approached the civil court for recovery of the booking amount. He further relied on clause 12 of the prospectus of the farmhouse clarifying that advance once given will not be refunded at any cost, and Clause 14 states if in case of cancellation the party is liable to pay the full amount as per booking. The farmhouse further argued that they never intimated the complainant about not having the requisite electricity load and also filed a copy of electricity bills generated by them to support their contention.

Observations of the Commission:

The bench placed reliance on the decision in Trans Mediterranean Airways vs M/s. Universal Exports and Anr. VIII (2011) SLT 339 and observed that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and therefore it cannot be argued that the complainant should have approached a civil court for recovery of his amount. Hence, the complaint was found to be maintainable.

It was then observed that though the farmhouse claims that the complainant unilaterally cancelled the booking, they have not filed any communication/document/letters/e-mail sent to the complainant resolving his query. Thus, it was held that the farmhouse failed to clarify their stance when the complainant sought an explanation from them after knowing about the ban on diesel generators which amounts to deficiency in service.

Hence, the complaint was allowed and directions were passed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid by the complainant.

Cast Title: Mnaish Khandelwal vs Chhabra farms & Ors.

Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. DC/84/CC/19/8

Date of Judgment: 17.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order