NEW DELHI: A wedding band that never showed up has cost its operator Rs 39,000, after a district consumer commission in Himachal Pradesh held him guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for leaving a groom’s family stranded on the wedding day, in its order dated July 13.What went wrong on the wedding dayThe complainant, had booked a five-member brass band from Pawan Kumar, for his son’s wedding on February 5, 2026. The booking was made about a month in advance, for a total of Rs 9,000, with Rs 4,200 paid upfront as advance and token money, as per the court order.On the wedding day, the band did not arrive. The complainant repeatedly called the operator, who first assured him the band was on its way, but later stopped answering and switched off his phone. With the wedding procession stalled, the complainant had to arrange another band on the spot at the last minute, paying Rs 10,000 for the emergency service. He then approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, alleging deficiency in service on the operator’s part.The opposite party did not respond to the notice or contest the case at any stage, and was proceeded ex-parte throughout the proceedings.Why did the commission rule against the band operator?Since the operator neither appeared nor challenged the complainant’s version of events, the bench of President Hemanshu Mishra and members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur said the complainant’s evidence stood unchallenged, and there was no reason to disbelieve it.“Opposite party despite of valid service did not bother to contest the complaint and opted to remain ex-parte. Thus, evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the cogent and convincing evidence adduced by the complainant,” the commission observed.The commission noted that the operator had accepted Rs 4,000 as advance but failed to send the band as agreed, forcing the family to arrange a replacement at short notice to keep the wedding on track.“The non-appearance of the Opposite Party and their failure to provide the promised brass band services on the auspicious occasion of the marriage ceremony of the complainant’s son constitutes a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,” the commission further observed.Allowing the complaint, the commission directed the operator to pay Rs 14,000 — covering the refund of the advance amount and the cost of the replacement band arranged on the wedding day — along with 9 percent annual interest from the date the complaint was filed till the amount is actually paid. It further ordered Rs 15,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to Rs 39,000.The commission also directed that a free copy of the order be provided to both parties, as mandated under the Consumer Protection Act, and that the order be uploaded on the commission’s website for the parties’ reference.
