IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE KARNATAKA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT BENGALURU

APPEAL NO._____/2022

BETWEEN:
M/s. Poornima Convention Centre,
represented by its Manager … Appellant

AND:
Sri.M.N.SubbaRaju … Respondent

INDEX

Sl.No. Particulars Page Nos. C.F. Paid

1. Memorandum of Appeal under Section
41 of the Consumer Protection Act,
2019
2. Certified copy of the Order in
Consumer Complaint No.362/2021
and certified copies and same were
marked as ANNEXURE - A to D
3. IA No.1 under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act for stay.
4. IA No.2 under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act R/w Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act
5. Vakalathnama
6. Process Memo along with copy of the
Appeal memo

Place: Bengaluru

Date: Advocate for Appellant

 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE KARNATAKA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT BENGALURU
APPEAL NO._____/2022

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT BENGALURU
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.362/2021
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE KARNATAKA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT BENGALURU
Appeal No._____/2022

RANK OF PARTIES

DISTRICT COMMISSION/STATE COMMISSION

BETWEEN:

THE POORNIMA
CONVENTION CENTRE
No.27/1, 31st Cross,
16th Main,
IV Block Jayanagar,
Bengaluru 560 011
rep. by its Manager,
Mr.Nanje Gowda …Complainant/Respondent

AND:

Sri.M.N.SUBBARAJU
s/o late M.S.Narayana Setty
Aged about 64 years,
Residing at No:71(370),
S.B.Road, V.V.Puram,
Bengaluru 560 004 …Opposite Party/Appellant

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 41 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019;

The Appellant herein most humbly prays as under;

1. The address of the Appellant for the purpose of service of court

notice, summons, processes, etc., from this Hon’ble Commission is
as stated in the cause title stated supra and they may also be served
through their counsel, Sri.K.S.Raghuram, “Pro Legal”, No.524, 10th
Main, 33rd Cross, IV Block Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011.
2. The address of the Respondent/Opposite Party for the purpose
of service of court processes, notices, summons, etc., from this
Hon’ble Commission is as stated above in the cause title.

3. It is submitted that the Appellant has preferred this appeal as

against the Order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Principal
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,(Bengaluru
Urban), Cauvery Bhavan, Bengaluru in Consumer Complaint
No.362/2021 by allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent as
against this Appellant “directing the Appellant to pay a sum of
Rs.1,33,515/- (Rupees One Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Five
Hundred and Fifteen Only) along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the the Complaint till the date of its
payment and also further ordered that the Appellant shall be liable to
pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost, all to be paid to the
Complainant within 45 days from the date of the order”. The certified
copy of the order dated 31.01.2022 is produce herewith for the kind
perusal of this Hon’ble Commission as “Annexure No.1”.

4. The Appellant has not filed any other appeal before any other
court, on the subject matter of this appeal.

5. Brief Facts of the Case:

a. It is submitted that the Appellant, ‘Poornima Convention Center’,
is a convention center located in Jayanagar, Bangalore, offering
their convention hall for various ceremonial purposes. Further, it
is submitted that during the month of February 2020, the
Respondent, one Sri.M.N.Subbaraju has booked the convention
hall for performing the marriage of his daughter Miss.Priyanka.

b. It is submitted that the Respondent on 26.02.2020 paid an

advance amount of Rs.2,53,700/- (Rs. Two Lakhs Fifty Three
Thousand and Seven Hundred only) and blocked the convention
hall for performing his daughter’s marriage on 22.07.2020 and
23.07.2020. Further, it is submitted that the Respondent had
paid the advance amount by way of cheque bearing No.008138,
 drawn on Dena Bank, K.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru, for which,
the Appellant has issued a Receipt No.522 for the same. A copy of
the Receipt No.522 dated 26.02.2020 is produce herewith for the
kind perusal of this Hon’ble Commission as “Annexure No.2”.

c. It is submitted that at the time of booking the Convention Hall

the Appellant had explained the ‘Conditions of Cancellation’, as
“In case of any cancellation the entire rental amount is
forfeited or otherwise 10% of the total rental amount is
deducted against re-booking of the same date from other
party”. Further, it is submitted that such blocking of the
convention hall is a conditional booking, and there was a mutual
acceptance of such refund policy, the Respondent had paid the
advance amount and had booked the Convention hall.

d. It is submitted that the management of the “Poornima Convention

Centre’, the Appellant herein, after through discussions and
deliberations about the financial losses incurred by them due to
the covid-19 situation and also keeping in mind the requests of
its customers/parties, who had booked and cancelled the
bookings due to covid-19 situation, it was unanimously resolved
to refund 50% of the booking amount received at the time of the
booking to the concerned parties by way of cheque as a special
case due to COVID and accordingly the refunds at the rate of 50%
of advance booking refund amount has been made to more than
25 customers/parties. A copy of the Statement Showing such
refunds to the customers of the Opposite Party are produced
herewith for the perusal of this Hon’ble Commission as
“Annexure No.3”.

e. It is submitted that the Respondent had sent a letter dated

23.06.2020 to the Appellant seeking for the cancellation of
booking made on 22.07.2020 and 23.07.2020 giving the reasons
of the pandemic Covid-19 restrictions. Further, it is submitted
that the management of the Appellant considering the pandemic
Covid-19 situation and to befit its customers had taken a decision
 to refund 50% of the advance amount to all those customers who
had cancelled the bookings.

f. It is submitted that the Respondent had visited the Appellant’s

office on 02.11.2020 and met the manager and duly collected the
Cheque bearing No.166338 drawn on ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar
Branch, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.1,07,500/- (Rupees One
Lakh Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) with free consent
and had signed the ‘Letter of Undertaking’, without any coercion,
force or undue influence and had signed the ‘Acknowledgement of
Receipt’, stating that the Respondent is agreeing to receive the
50% of the booking amount and thereby agreeing to the terms of
the management decisions of the Opposite Party.

g. It is submitted that the Respondent after receiving 50% of the refund

amount had issued a legal notice dated 18.05.2021 through counsel
and further has filed the Consumer Complaint No.362/2021 before
the Hon’ble Principal District Consumer Redressal Commission.
Further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Principal District Consumer
Redressal Commission on admission of the complaint had caused
Notice to the Appellant and for non-appearance of the Appellant, the
Appellant was placed ex-parte and after recording the evidence and
hearing the arguments of the Respondent, the Hon’ble District
Consumer Redressal Commission passed an Order dated
31.01.2022. A copy of the Legal Notice dated 18.05.2021 produced
herewith for the perusal of this Hon’ble Commission as “Annexure
No.4”.

h. It is submitted that Appellant was not aware of the Complaint filed

by the Respondent before the ‘Hon’ble Principal District Consumer
Redressal Commission’, or regarding the Order passed on
31.01.2022 and the Appellant was aware of such a complaint only
after receiving the Certified copy of the Order dated 31.01.2022 from
the Hon’ble Principal District Consumer Redressal Commission
regarding the initiation of the Complaint about the impugned order.
Hence the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal challenging
the Order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Principal District
Consumer Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru.
6. The Appellant aggrieved by the said order has preferred the
present appeal on the following grounds:

GROUNDS
a. The Appellant submits that, the impugned order is an ex-parte
order, wherein no notice has been served on the Appellant from the
Hon’ble District Forum and the Appellant was not aware of the
complaint given by the Respondent and the impugned order passed
in the absence of the Appellant and the court below erred in passing
impugned order based on the sole contention of the Respondent
without properly evaluating the documents produced by the
Respondent and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

b. The Appellant submits that, the Hon’ble District Forum

without properly verifying the claim of the Respondent has totally
relied on the averments in the complaint has wrongly contended that
there was a deficiency of service on the part of the Appellant is not
proper and as such impugned order is liable to be set aside.

c. The Appellant submits that, as alleged in the complaint at no

point of time the Appellant was served with any notice alleged to
have been issued by the Respondent on the Appellant and even the
Appellant has not committed any deficiency of service towards the
Respondent and whatever the claim of Rs.1,46,200/-(Rupees One
Lakh Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred ) made by the Respondent is
an illusory one and appellant is not liable to pay afore mentioned
amount to the respondent as per the scheme mentioned in the
compliant and there is no provision in the scheme condition for
return scheme amount and same has not been considered by the
Hon’ble district forum while passing ex-party impugned order and as
such impugned order is liable to be set aside with an opportunity to
the appellant to pursue the matter before the Hon’ble district forum
by producing relevant documents pertaining to the scheme of
respondent.
d. The appellant submits that, admittedly the respondent had
booked the Choultry on the dates of 22.07.2020 and 23.07.2020,
having paid the advance amount by way of cheque bearing
No.008138, drawn on Dena Bank, K.G Road Branch, Bengaluru and
obtained a receipt for the same from the appellant vide receipt
No.522, dated 26.02.2020 for the amount of 2,53,700/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Only) knowing full well
that the amount being paid was to be non-refundable under any
circumstances. However, the respondent is entitled to none of the
amount advanced by him as per the agreement signed with the
appellant, the managing board of the appellant in light of the special
circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic has seen fit to refund
50% of the amount in question i.e. Rs1,07,500/-(Rupees One Lakh
Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the respondent and other
clients who due to the pandemic had to cancel their reservations.
But wherein, the respondent in the complaint claimed an amount of
2,26,200/-(Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred
Only) on a blind calculation and even the Hon’ble district forum
while passing the impugned order has failed to notice the same and
in a mechanical way the Hon’ble district forum has accepted the
blind claim of the respondent through the impugned order and
hence the same is liable to be set aside with a direction to the
Hon’ble District forum to reconsider the matter regarding the claim
calculation of Rs.2,26,200/-( Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Six
Thousand Two Hundred Only) by providing an opportunity to the
appellant to put fourth his case and to disprove the blind claim of
the respondent of Rs. 2,26,200/-( Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Six
Thousand Two Hundred Only).
e. The appellant submits that, as per the scheme mentioned in
the complaint, the appellant is ready to deliver benefits of the
Choultry to the respondent as per terns and condition of the original
agreement and even offered to move the reservation to a more
appropriate date as per the convenience of the respondent. But the
respondent when offered 50% of the amount in question demanded
the total amount of Rs.2,53,700/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Three
Thousand Seven Hundred Only) which had already been used to
facilitate the operational costs of the Choultry such as wages and
financial support for the families employed there for the course of
the pandemic. Furthermore commercialized utility bills followed by
the GST on the reservation have also been paid. But the respondent
continues to fail to recognize realities of the situation that the
pandemic has wroth and continues to demand 100% of the amount
in question and in the frivolous pursuit has filed a false complaint
against the appellant even though there is no deficiency of service by
the appellant and if at all the notice would have been served on the
appellant from the court below, then the appellant could have
appeared and suitably replayed to the claim of the respondent. Then
the actual fact would have been revealed while considering the
matter and as such on these grounds the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.
f. The appellant submits that, as mentioned above appellant has
not committed any deficiency of service and as such directing the
appellant to pay Rs50,000/-(Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation
and Rs30,000/-( Thirty Thousand Only) towards the cost of litigation
through the impugned order without properly considering facts and
circumstances of the case is not proper and the same is liable to be
set aside with a direction to the forum below to reopen the complaint
and to provide opportunity to the appellant to put forth their case.
g. The appellant submits that, the impugned order passed by the
Hon’ble district forum is highly arbitrary and same calls for
interference of this Hon’ble forum to reconsider the facts and
circumstances in the complaint.
7. The appellant submits that, the appellant reserve the rights to
submit additional ground if any during the time of arguments.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE the Respondent above named most respectfully
prays that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order for:
 a. Call for entire records in Consumer Complaint No.362/2021
on the file of the Hon’ble Additional District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru;
b. Set aside the impugned order dated ____________ passed by
the Hon’ble Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bengaluru;
c. Prays to remit back the Consumer Complaint No.362/2021 to
the Hon’be Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bengaluru with a direction to hear the matter afresh
by providing opportunity to the Appellant.
d. To grant the Respondent with such other and further relief as
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts
and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

Place:BENGALURU
Date: ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
VERIFICATION
I, NANJE GOWDA, the Proprietor of the Respondent do hereby
declare that what is stated in the petition in Para No. 1 to ___ is
true and correct to the best of our knowledge, belief and
information.
Place:BENGALURU
Date: ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT