Caterer ordered to pay Rs 5.85 lakh over non-refund of sangeet cancelled in Covid lockdown

Presiding member Rajesh K Arya and member Preetinder Singh were hearing an appeal filed by Panchkula resident, one Subhash Chander Singla against Commando Caterers Private Limited after a district consumer commission had dismissed his complaint in December 2025.

“A consumer cannot be deprived of his money where the very foundation of the transaction has failed and no reciprocal service has been rendered. Consumer Fora are duty-bound to examine the substance of the transaction and not merely its form. If the respondents are permitted to retain the entire amount of Rs 5,00,000/- despite rendering no service whatsoever, the result would be manifestly inequitable and would amount to unjust enrichment,” the commission said on June 15.

It added, “Such a consequence would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, which seeks to ensure fairness in consumer transactions and to prevent exploitation of consumers through unfair contractual practices.”

The caterer defended its decision by pointing to a clause in its printed booking terms stating that “advances are not refundable under any circumstances”. (Image generated using AI)

Relief granted to consumer

Allowing the appeal, the commission set aside the district commission‘s order and directed ‘Commando Caterers’ and its representatives to jointly and severally to refund Rs 5 lakh to the complainant.

Pay interest at 9 per cent per annum from February 25, 2020, till actual payment.

Pay Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

Pay Rs 35,000 towards litigation expenses.

The commission further ruled that if the payment is not made within 30 days, the refund amount would carry enhanced interest at 12 per cent per annum until realisation.

Celebration that never happened

Singla’s daughter was scheduled to get married on April 26, 2020. In February 2020, while planning wedding festivities, Singla visited Chandigarh Club to finalise arrangements for a ladies’ sangeet and cocktail function.

Representatives of ‘Commando Caterers’ allegedly offered to host the event for around Rs 17 lakh, catering to between 700 and 800 guests. Singla paid Rs 5 lakh as an advance through a cheque, which was debited from his account on February 25, 2020.

He claimed that he was assured the amount would be refunded if the function was cancelled.

But before the celebrations could take place, India entered an unprecedented nationwide lockdown.

Story continues below this ad

COVID-19 changes everything

On March 24, 2020, the government of India imposed a nationwide lockdown to curb the spread of COVID-19, banning public gatherings and social functions.

As a result, the pre-wedding event scheduled for April 18, 2020, became impossible to organise. Singla informed the caterer through a WhatsApp message on March 28, 2020, that the function had been cancelled and sought a refund of the advance amount.

Instead of returning the money, the caterer allegedly demanded the balance payment and later refused to refund the advance.

After legal notices failed to yield any response, Singla approached the consumer commission seeking recovery of his money from the caterer along with compensation.

Story continues below this ad

Caterer relied on ‘non-refundable’ clause

The caterer defended its decision by pointing to a clause in its printed booking terms stating that “advances are not refundable under any circumstances”.

It argued that the cancellation was caused by government restrictions and not because of any deficiency in service on its part.

The company also claimed it had continued paying salaries and statutory dues to employees despite severe business losses during the pandemic. It further argued that Singla could have postponed the function and used the booking on a later date.

These arguments found favour with the district consumer commission, which dismissed the complaint on December 18, 2025.

Story continues below this ad

State commission finds district forum erred

The state commission noted that both sides- the caterer and the consumer, admitted the function could not be held because of the lockdown and restrictions imposed by government authorities. The inability to perform the contract was not caused by any fault or negligence on the part of the consumer.

“The impossibility of performance of the contract did not arise on account of any voluntary act, omission or default attributable to the appellant but because of supervening circumstances beyond the control of either party,” the commission said.

The commission held that the district commission committed a “manifest error” by relying solely on the non-refundable clause without examining whether the clause itself was enforceable in the circumstances of the case.

‘One-sided, arbitrary, oppressive’

The commission held that the clause allowing forfeiture of advances under “any circumstances” was unfair and unconscionable.

Story continues below this ad

The commission said such a condition would allow a service provider to retain money even when an event never takes place, no services are rendered, and no losses are proven.

“Such a clause is manifestly one-sided, arbitrary and oppressive and cannot be enforced in a manner which defeats the very object of consumer protection jurisprudence,” the order said.

The commission also relied on Supreme Court rulings dealing with unfair contractual terms and observed that consumer forums are empowered to assess the fairness and reasonableness of standard-form contracts.

No evidence of actual loss

The commission found that the caterer failed to produce any evidence showing losses equivalent to the Rs 5 lakh retained.

Story continues below this ad

There was no proof of event-specific expenses such as food procurement, decorations, additional staffing or any other arrangements made exclusively for the complainant’s function.

“In the absence of such evidence, retention of the entire advance amount becomes wholly unjustified,” the commission said.

It further added that a blanket forfeiture clause cannot replace proof of actual loss and that allowing such retention would amount to unjust enrichment.

Unsigned contract also came under scrutiny

Another factor that weakened the caterer’s case was the absence of a properly executed agreement.

Story continues below this ad

The commission found that the enquiry form and proposed menu relied upon by the company were never signed by either side.

Even the deed of contract attached to the documents was left blank and unsigned.

The commission concluded that no concluded contract had come into existence and that the Rs 5 lakh could at best be treated as a token amount paid while negotiations and final booking terms were still being finalised.

Why rescheduling was not an option

Rejecting the company’s argument that the event could have been rescheduled after restrictions eased, the commission noted that a ladies’ sangeet is not an ordinary gathering but a time-sensitive pre-wedding ceremony linked to a fixed marriage schedule.

Story continues below this ad

The commission said consumers cannot be forced to postpone or reorganise such events merely to protect the commercial interests of service providers.

Wider significance

The ruling is likely to resonate with thousands of families whose weddings and celebrations were disrupted during the COVID-19 lockdown.

By holding that service providers cannot automatically retain advances merely by invoking standard-form non-refundable clauses, the commission reaffirmed an important consumer protection principle- when no service is delivered, and no loss is proven, businesses cannot profit from a crisis at the consumer’s expense.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Chandigarh helpline: 1800-180-2087 ) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.