A district consumer commission has directed Buena Vista Luxury Garden Spa Resort in Jaipur to refund Rs 8.5 lakh to a man after his daughter’s wedding was cancelled. The commission held that the resort could not keep the entire Rs 10 lakh advance by relying on a 100 percent cancellation charge without proving the actual loss it suffered. It allowed the resort to retain Rs 1.5 lakh towards booking-related expenses and possible loss. The order was passed on August 18, 2026.What was the dispute over the wedding resort booking?According to the commission order, Pardeep Gupta had booked Buena Vista Luxury Garden Spa Resort in Jaipur for the wedding functions of his daughter, Annie Gupta, scheduled from November 20 to November 22, 2024. Gupta said he had never personally visited the resort and had booked it on the basis of its goodwill. He paid Rs 5 lakh from his Union Bank of India account on August 21, 2024, and another Rs 5 lakh from his daughter’s ICICI Bank account on August 20, 2024. No written agreement was executed between Gupta and the resort.Gupta said the resort had assured him that the advance would be refunded if the wedding was cancelled. However, the marriage was called off. He informed the resort about the cancellation in September 2024 and again through emails dated October 2 and 3, 2024, seeking a refund of the Rs 10 lakh advance. Despite repeated requests and a legal notice dated January 20, 2025, the resort did not refund the money.Gupta then approached the consumer commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He sought refund of the Rs 10 lakh advance with 36 percent annual interest, besides Rs 2 lakh as compensation and damages for the harassment he had faced.The resort opposed the complaint, saying Gupta had made the booking through Hanish Arora of Arriwell Tours. It said the booking terms, including the cancellation policy, had been communicated through email and accepted before the payments were made. Under the policy, cancellation within 60 days of the event entitled the resort to retain 100 percent of the estimated billing amount.The resort also claimed that it had already made financial investments and preparations for the wedding and suffered losses because of the cancellation. It said the total estimated booking amount was Rs 64,22,740 and claimed that Gupta was liable to pay the remaining Rs 48,72,740 as well.What did the commission say while rejecting the resort’s claim?The bench comprising President Lalit Mohan Dogra and member Bhagwan Singh Matharu first examined the resort’s argument that Gupta was not its consumer because the booking was allegedly made through Hanish Arora or Arriwell Tours. The commission noted that Rs 5 lakh each had been transferred directly from Gupta and his daughter’s bank accounts to the resort.“Today, the bank statements Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 conclusively proved direct transfer of Rs.10 Lakh leaving no factual ambiguity regarding payments by the complainant and his daughter and thereafter cancellation of said event through E-mails of Miss.Annie Gupta and the fact that cancellation was communicated almost two months prior and thereby giving the opposite parties adequate time,” the commission said.The commission also examined the resort’s reliance on the cancellation policy. It noted that the resort had not produced a separate written agreement signed by Gupta containing the 100 percent forfeiture clause. It also found that the cancellation was communicated well before the wedding dates, giving the resort time to try to re-allot the venue.“Assertions in pleadings cannot take the place of proof. The opposite parties have failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that any non-refundable payments were made to third party vendors or that any actual financial loss was suffered due to the cancellation,” it further held.It also considered the cases cited by the resort. In one of those cases, the resort had produced evidence of advance payments made to vendors and actual unrecoverable losses. The commission said Buena Vista had not produced similar evidence in this case.The commission further rejected the argument that the 100 percent cancellation charge itself established the resort’s loss. It said the resort could not retain the entire advance merely because the cancellation fell within the period mentioned in its policy.“Where a service provider retains 100 percent of the advance amount without demonstrating actual loss, it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. However, considering that a confirmed booking was made and later cancelled, some reasonable administrative or booking-related expenses may have been incurred. Therefore, allowing the opposite parties to retain 15 percent of the total advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- would be just and reasonable,” the bench further added.The commission therefore allowed the resort to retain Rs 1.5 lakh and ordered it to refund the remaining Rs 8.5 lakh to Gupta. It also rejected the resort’s claim for the remaining Rs 48,72,740 of the estimated booking amount, as no services had ultimately been provided.The complaint was partly allowed and the resort was directed to refund Rs 8.5 lakh within 45 days of receiving the order. If it fails to pay within that period, the amount will carry 9 percent annual interest from the date of deposit until actual realisation.
