COVID-19 Wedding Cancellation: Rajasthan State Commission Allows Spanish Citizen's Plea To Represent Wedding Guests In Refund Dispute Against Castle Mundota
The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, comprising Ms. Urmila Verma, Member (Judicial), and Mr. Jai Gautam, Member, has allowed an appeal filed by Luis Casacuberta Abril against M/s Castle Mundota & Ors., holding that the complainant's application seeking to proceed on behalf of other wedding guests under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ought to have been allowed.
Facts
The complainant, Luis Casacuberta Abril, had filed Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur-III, against M/s Castle Mundota and Ors. The dispute arose from a wedding celebration that was initially scheduled for April 2020, later postponed to April 2021, and ultimately cancelled in February 2021 due to COVID-19 restrictions on social events and restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals into India.
According to the complainant, there existed a commonality of interest between him and several wedding guests who had also made payments to the opposite parties. He sought refund of ₹10,03,000 and ₹40,000, along with interest at 18% per annum, and included in the complaint the names of the guests and the amounts paid by them.
During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant filed an application under Order I Rule 8 CPC seeking to represent the other wedding guests in the proceedings. The District Consumer Commission rejected the application, following which the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission.
Contentions of the Opposite Parties
The opposite parties argued that the complainant had no authority to represent the wedding guests, that the guests had not independently claimed any refund, and that their claims were barred by limitation. They further challenged the maintainability of the representative proceedings.
Observations and Decision
The State Commission observed that the names of the wedding guests and the amounts paid by them had already been incorporated in the original complaint. It noted that Order I Rule 8 CPC is intended to facilitate proceedings involving persons having a common interest and that a separate power of attorney or authorisation from each guest was not necessary.
The Commission further noted that permission under Order I Rule 8 CPC is ordinarily required before instituting representative proceedings. However, in the present case, the complainant had already disclosed the details of all the guests and their respective payments in the complaint and had also made an alternative plea to be treated as a beneficiary consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
The State Commission observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation intended for the protection of consumers and that its provisions should be interpreted in a manner that advances that objective. It held that the application could not be rejected solely because permission under Order I Rule 8 CPC was sought after the filing of the complaint.
Accordingly, the State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the District Commission's order, and directed the District Consumer Commission, Jaipur-III, to comply with the requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC.
The parties were directed to appear before the District Consumer Commission on the date fixed therein.
Case No.: Appeal No. 222/2025
Case Title: Luis Casacuberta Abril v. M/s Castle Mundota, Through Partner & Ors.
Appearances
For the complainant: Shri Himanshu Suman and Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Advocates.
For the opposite parties: Shri Shubham Arora, Advocate.