|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage halls and educational institutions have one thing in common — both try to avoid refunding deposits in case of cancellation of`A0booking!`A0Both come up with terms and conditions to defeat any claims for such refund. However, while in the case of educational institutions,`A0the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) have`A0issued guidelines to protect students from such exploitation,`A0in respect of marriage halls, consumers have to fend for themselves.
Usually, when a marriage hall is booked, cancellation is the last thing on the mind of`A0parents, who usually do the booking.`A0So, obviously, they do not make any enquiries about the cancellation policy.`A0The hall owners find it convenient to keep quiet about it. However, if for some reason the marriage is postponed or cancelled (due to a sudden change of mind by either of the parties to the marriage or the death of a relative or some such exigency), the parents, who are already distressed, get a shock when they are shown the hitherto unheard of terms and conditions and told that the deposit paid towards booking of the hall will not be refunded. Well, in all such cases, parents can quote court cases to argue that such unfair practices will not stand the scrutiny of the court. In fact, not just orders pertaining to marriage halls, but even those orders given with regard to refund of fees by educational institutions apply here, because the broad principles are the same. First and foremost, courts have held that people are not bound by the unfair or one-sided terms and conditions that are not even shown to them`A0(Tip Top Drycleaners, Ranchi,`A0vs Sunil Kumar,`A0Revision Petition No 1328 of 2003). Even if they were shown and the consumer had no choice but to sign on the dotted line, courts have struck down such terms if they were found to be unfair. In the case of Central Water Transport Corporation Ltd`A0vs`A0Tarun`A0Kanti`A0Sengupta`A0(1986)3 SCC 156 ), for example, the Supreme Court discussed the concept of coercive bargaining and held that the courts will strike down as unfair and unreasonable, such terms in contracts where the clients have no choice (because of unequal bargaining power) but to sign on the dotted line. In other words, the hall owners cannot use unfair terms and contracts to keep back the full refund. However, while adjudicating over these cases, courts look at how early or late the cancellations took place and whether the hall owners got another booking.`A0They may also look at whether the hall owners really suffered a loss.`A0Where there was enough advance notice or where the hall owners found other customers and did not suffer any losses, courts have mandated that the full refund should be given, after deducting a small amount towards administrative charges,`A0if any. In a recent case decided by the First Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Bangalore, the owner offered to pay only Rs 15,000 out of Rs 60,000 collected towards booking of Sri Ranganatha Swamy Kalyana Mantapa on the ground that he had not got any other party for the days earlier`A0booked by the complainant, H.K.Sathyanarayana,`A0 and had, therefore, suffered a loss on account of cancellation.`A0The court directed the manager of the hall to refund Rs 43,000 instead. In`A0the case of Nipun Nagar vs Symbiosis Institute of International Business (RP No 1336 of 2008) decided in 2008, the institute argued that it had retained Rs 1 lakh and returned only Rs 10,000 because the student had withdrawn from the course after the commencement of the course, and in such cases, the seat left vacant would remain so for the complete academic course of two years. However, the apex court here pointed out that the institute had not suffered any loss`A0as it had admitted in`A0the general category, more students than the sanctioned strength.`A0It, therefore,`A0directed the college to`A0refund Rs 1 lakh along with 6 per cent interest to the student.
|
