The district consumer disputes redressal commission, Chandigarh, has directed the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) to refund ₹9,900 withheld from a marriage venue booking cancelled during the Covid-19 lockdown, along with 9% annual interest and ₹5,000 as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.
The case concerns Harvinder Pal, a Chandigarh resident from Manimajra, who booked the Panchkula Community Centre in Sector 6 for his daughter’s wedding scheduled for April 26, 2020. He had paid ₹74,900 for the booking on November 2, 2019.
However, the wedding function could not be held at the venue due to the Covid-19 lockdown. Pal sought a refund of the entire amount on May 7, 2020, following which ₹65,000 was returned, leaving ₹9,900 unpaid.
Despite repeated requests, the remaining amount was not refunded. In a letter dated September 29, 2025, the estate officer of the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), Panchkula, rejected his claim, stating that the amount represented goods and services tax (GST) pertaining to the 2020-21 financial year and could not be adjusted in the 2024-25 financial year.
Pal approached the consumer commission, submitting documents related to the booking and cancellation. He also cited another case in which the entire amount for a cancelled community centre booking had reportedly been refunded.
{{/usCountry}}Pal approached the consumer commission, submitting documents related to the booking and cancellation. He also cited another case in which the entire amount for a cancelled community centre booking had reportedly been refunded.
{{/usCountry}}While examining the matter, the commission observed that there was no material on record to establish that Pal was liable to forfeit the remaining ₹9,900 following the cancellation.
It further noted that the authority’s explanation regarding GST and financial-year adjustments did not justify retaining the amount, particularly when the booking had been cancelled due to the pandemic and the facility had not been used.
The commission held that administrative or accounting difficulties, by themselves, could not be a ground for withholding money collected from a consumer under these circumstances.