Pune Consumer Court Orders Event Manager to Refund Rs 40,000 for Munja Ceremony Cancelled Due to COVID-19 Lockdown

Pune, 8th July 2025: The Pune District Consumer Grievance Redressal Commission has ordered a city-based event hall manager and hotelier to refund ₹40,000 along with 6% annual interest from February 2020, after failing to return the advance paid for a thread ceremony (munja) that was cancelled due to the COVID-19 lockdown.

In addition to the refund, the Commission directed the respondent to pay ₹22,000 towards compensation and legal expenses, citing service deficiency and unfair trade practices.

Case Background
The complaint was filed by Advocate Mohan Anturkar, a resident of Shaniwar Peth, against Amit Gokhale, who was managing Siddharth Hall in Erandwane at the time of the booking. Anturkar had reserved the hall for his grandson Raghav’s munja ceremony, which was scheduled to take place on April 26, 2020. The event was expected to host around 200 guests, with the total cost amounting to ₹1.65 lakh. A sum of ₹40,000 was paid in advance.

However, following the nationwide lockdown announced on March 24, 2020, due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the event had to be cancelled. Anturkar promptly informed Gokhale of the cancellation on March 25 and was reportedly assured that the advance payment would be refunded within a week.

Despite multiple reminders and follow-ups by Anturkar and his daughter-in-law, Advocate Renuka Anturkar, over phone calls and WhatsApp messages, no refund was issued. Even after sending a legal notice, there was no response. A second notice sent in July 2022 was returned marked “unclaimed.”

Commission’s Observation and Ruling
The Consumer Commission, led by Chairperson Anil Javalekar and Members Shubhangi Dunakhe and Sarita Patil, observed that the non-refund of the booking amount despite repeated communication constituted a clear deficiency in service.

“The complainant was forced to cancel the ceremony due to the unforeseen and mandatory restrictions of the pandemic. In such a case, the advance should have been refunded without delay. However, the respondent’s failure to do so, even after several assurances, reflects an unfair business practice,” the Commission stated in its order.

Since the respondent failed to appear for the hearings despite receiving legal notices, the case was decided ex parte.