A Hyderabad consumer forum has ordered a wedding event management firm to refund Rs 5.60 lakh and pay Rs 1.10 lakh in compensation and legal costs to a customer after the company halted services mid-way through a series of pre-wedding ceremonies following a payment dispute.
The Hyderabad Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising President B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and V Janardhan Reddy, issued the ruling on July 22. The panel held that withholding funds while abruptly stopping work and demanding extra advance payments amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Unilateral Demands and Service Disruption
The dispute stems from an agreement in which a 56-year-old man hired the event management company to organize multiple pre-wedding functions for his daughter in October 2024. The contracted events included the engagement, sangeet, haldi, mehendi, pellikuturu ceremony, and home decoration, for which the client paid an advance of Rs 13 lakh.
After express dissatisfaction over the arrangements at the engagement on October 20 and the sangeet on October 27, discussions took place regarding a partial cancellation. While the company initially agreed to complete the remaining functions, it subsequently sent a WhatsApp message to the complainant’s wife refusing to conduct the remaining ceremonies unless an additional Rs 25 lakh plus a further advance were paid. Facing the sudden withdrawal of services, the family was forced to hire a replacement service provider at the last minute.
Defense Arguments and Commission Findings
In its response, the event management company, represented by advocate K Vikram, argued that the functions were conducted satisfactorily and cited its successful handling of the client’s 25th wedding anniversary as proof of capability. The firm contended that allegations of poor service were fabricated to avoid paying contractual dues and that the complainant had breached agreed payment schedules.
Rejecting the firm’s arguments, the commission noted that the company failed to produce any signed document proving the client had agreed to the specific payment terms being enforced. The tribunal ruled that retaining advance money while failing to execute the remaining services was unlawful. Consequently, the commission directed the company to refund Rs 5.60 lakh, along with Rs 1 lakh in compensation for hardship and Rs 10,000 in litigation costs, within 45 days.
