ORDER (Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member): This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 265 of 2011 thereby allowing the consumer complaint and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses within a month from the date of the order, failing which the opposite party shall pay an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint till the date of payment to the complainant. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Anand Swaroop had booked the Community Centre “Milan Mandir” of the Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun on 10.06.2010 for the marriage of his daughter, which was to be solemnized on 27.11.2010 and had paid a sum of Rs. 500/- as an advance rent. However, the opposite party – Senior General Manager of the Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun had booked the same (Community Centre “Milan Mandir”) for the National Convention of All India Defence Employees Federation, which was to be held from 25.11.2010 to 27.11.2010 without giving any intimation to the complainant. When the complainant came to know that the Community Centre has been booked for the National Convention of All India Defence Employees Federation, he contacted the opposite party, who asked him to solemnize his daughter’s marriage either in Senior Club or Junior Club of the Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun. It caused the complainant great inconvenience and mental and physical agony, as he had to make all the arrangements for tents, beddings etc. and also caused him a huge financial loss. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner vide its order dated 14.11.2013. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party and respondent-complainant, Sh. Anand Swaroop, in person and perused the record. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party and respondent-complainant, Sh. Anand Swaroop, in person and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Community Centre is meant for the various programmes organized by the Ordnance Factory as well as by the employees of the Ordnance Factory including marriage ceremonies and other functions and a very nominal amount is charged for the maintenance of the Community Centre. Thus, the respondent is not a consumer of the appellant. Further, it was well in knowledge of the respondent that a National Convention was going to be held on 25th, 26th and 27th November, 2010, because the respondent is also a member of the Defence Employees Federation. 5. Keeping in view the importance of the National Convention, which was to be attended and to be addressed by various senior authorities of the Department, the opposite party had to reserve the Community Centre for the said National Convention and the complainant was offered an alternative space either in Senior Club or in Junior Club of the Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun. The respondent preferred Junior Club and, as is evident from the affidavit filed by Sh. Puran Singh, Supervisor, Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun, the employees extended full help and co-operation in making arrangements in Junior Club including free arrangements of quilts and mattresses. Thus, the learned counsel argued that the consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant on frivolous ground and the District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in right perspective. 6. The respondent, Sh. Anand Swaroop, reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order. He showed the receipt dated 11.06.2010 in respect of the payment of Rs. 500/- as an advance rent for the said Community Centre and submitted that no free arrangement of mattresses, quilts, tent, duree, sofa etc. were made by the employees and also submitted that all these arrangements were made by him. In support of his contention, the respondent showed us the receipts dated 27.11.2010 and 28.11.2010 for the payment of rental charges for these items. 7. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Sh. Anand Swaroop. were made by the employees and also submitted that all these arrangements were made by him. In support of his contention, the respondent showed us the receipts dated 27.11.2010 and 28.11.2010 for the payment of rental charges for these items. 7. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Sh. Anand Swaroop. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent is not a consumer of the appellant, is not sustainable because the appellant had charged a sum of Rs. 500/- as an advance rent for the Community Centre. Once the appellant had received the rent in advance, the Community Centre’s booking is supposed to be confirmed. If the Community Centre was, later on, booked for the Employees Federation’s National Convention, then the appellant should have informed the respondent with regard to cancellation of his booking and should have offered another space to him. There is no documentary evidence available on record that the appellant had informed the respondent well in time and had offered him alternative space. Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant is well proved and this appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 8. The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 14.11.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 265 of 2011 is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.