State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Chandigarh Industrial And Tourism ... vs Ashok Khurana on 13 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 341 of 2013 Date of Institution : 08.08.2013 Date of Decision : 13/08/2013 1. Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation (CITCO), through its Managing Director, SCO No.121-122, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. 2. Hotel Mountview, Sector 10, Chandigarh, through its General Manager. 3. The General Manager, Hotel Mountview, Sector 10, Chandigarh. Appellants/Opposite Parties V e r s u s Ashok Khurana s/o Late Sh.Lajpat Rai Khurana, R/o H.No.519, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh. ....Respondent/complainant. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Vipul Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.06.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent), and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-
In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to jointly & severally pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him mental agony, harassment and humiliation on account of their failure to render proper services. The OPs are also directed to jointly & severally pay litigation cost of Rs.7000/- to the complainant.
This order be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 22.10.2012 till realization, besides paying litigation cost of Rs.7000/-.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage of the son of the complainant, who was to come from USA, was to be solemnized, in the month of April, 2011. For arranging the programme of the marriage ceremonies, the complainant visited the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties told the complainant, that a venue for arranging programme i.e. shagun ceremony and lunch, for around 80 to 85 persons, could comfortably and nicely be arranged, in the Banquet Hall (Confluence), in Hotel Mountview. Accordingly, the complainant booked the Banquet Hall (Confluence), in Hotel Mountview, and paid a total sum of Rs.85,000/-, in advance, prior to the programme, for guaranteed number of guests to the Opposite Parties. It was stated that it was finalized by the complainant that the shagun ceremony, as also the lunch, shall be organized, in the Banquet Hall (Confluence), and, as such, the florist, was also engaged and instructed to decorate the same (Banquet Hall). The Opposite Parties also assured that the entire programme, including the lunch would be arranged and organized in Banquet Hall only.
3. It was further stated that, on the day of ceremony, the guests started arriving and the programme started, in the Banquet Hall (Confluence), but to the utmost shock and surprise of the complainant, the lunch was not found laid upto 1.45 P.M., as a result whereof, some of his guests, left without taking the same (lunch), which was to be placed, in the Banquet Hall (Confluence). On enquiry, the Opposite Parties informed that the lunch had been arranged, in some other hall, in the same Hotel, nearby, at a lower level, and it was suggested that the guests may be taken there. On asking the reasons, for placing the lunch, in some other hall, which was not booked by the complainant, it was told by the Opposite Parties, that there was some other function of the VVIPs, on the same evening, in the same Banquet Hall (Confluence), and they wanted to keep the same clear and needed time to decorate the same, for the evening programme. It was further stated that shifting of the venue unilaterally, by the Opposite Parties and laying of lunch, in some other hall, caused a great inconvenience to the guests of the complainant, as many of them left without having the same (lunch), which caused great humiliation, insult and damage to him (complainant), as a result whereof, the entire ceremony was spoiled. The matter was also taken up with the Opposite Parties, by sending a letter, as well as a legal notice, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.85,000/-, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the date of payment, till realization; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, for deficiency, in rendering service, adopting unfair trade practice, loss of reputation, inconvenience, mental agony, physical harassment, as also humiliation; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
4. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted the booking of Banquet Hall, in question, by the complainant, for arranging shagun ceremony and lunch aforesaid. It was stated that, on 13.04.2011, the whole details and lay outs, were discussed with Sh.Puneet Gaud (representative of the complainant) and he was told by the General Manager of Opposite Party No.2, that lunch was to be laid, in the adjoining new Conference Hall of the Hotel, on the same level. It was further stated that, on the approval of Sh.Puneet Gaud, the terms and conditions were duly complied with. It was further stated that the lunch was decided to be laid, in the New Conference Hall of the same Hotel, with round table sitting, on the same level. It was further stated that the said programme was carried out, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that, at the time of function/ceremony, the complainant approached the General Manager of Opposite Party No.2, and told that 32 more guests had to be accommodated. Accordingly, the General Manger of Opposite Party No.2, got prepared the food and accommodated 32 more guests of the complainant, as was reflected from the bill Annexure R-2. It was further stated that the complainant did not pay the balance amount, to the tune of Rs.37,874/-. It was further stated that legal notice dated 18.07.2011, for recovery of the said amount of Rs.37,874/-, was also served upon the complainant, by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that recovery suit for the amount of Rs.37,874/- alongwith interest, was also filed by the Opposite Parties, before the Court of Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Chandigarh, which was pending. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, no doubt, the Banquet Hall, in question, was booked by the respondent/complainant, for arranging shagun ceremony and lunch aforesaid, yet, on account of increase, in the number of guests, the Hall, adjoining the same (hall booked by the complainant), in the same Hotel, for laying the lunch, was arranged/booked for him. He further submitted that the Hall, in which the lunch was laid, being adjoining to the Banquet Hall (Confluence), which was booked by the complainant, there was no question of any inconvenience, harassment or humiliation, having been caused to him (complainant), and his guests. He further submitted that the District Forum, did not give any weightage, to the factum that 32 extra guests of the respondent/ complainant, were also served, as was clear from the bill Annexure C-2. He further submitted that the complainant did not pay the balance amount, to the tune of Rs.37,874/-. He further submitted that recovery suit for the amount of Rs.37,874/- alongwith interest, was also filed by the Opposite Parties, before the Court of Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Chandigarh, which was pending. He further submitted that, thus, there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the appellants/Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in granting compensation, to the complainant, for physical harassment, mental agony and humiliation. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondent/complainant booked the Banquet Hall (Confluence), in Hotel Mountview, for shagun ceremony and lunch of the guests, in connection with the marriage of his son. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that the Banquet Hall (Confluence), in Hotel Mountview, which was originally booked, was changed for the purpose of laying lunch, to another Hall, of the same Hotel by the Opposite Parties. There is no document, on record, that such change was made on the request of the complainant. The change of hall unilaterally, for laying the lunch was, thus, made by the Opposite Parties. On account of change of the venue for laying the lunch, in some other Hall, in the same Hotel, at the last moment, certainly, inconvenience was caused to some of the guests of the complainant, and some of them, might have left, without taking the same (lunch). There is nothing, on the record, to establish that the extra guests of the complainant, could not be served the lunch, in the same Hall, which had already been booked, by him. On account of change of venue of the lunch, to another Hall, though in the same Hotel, certainly a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, as also humiliation, was caused to the complainant, as at the last moment, the function was spoiled, to a great extent. Mere fact that the appellants/Opposite Parties have already filed a Civil Suit, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.37,874/-, which was not paid by the respondent/complainant, for the services rendered to him, and his guests, did not mean that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the appellants/Opposite Parties. Filing of Civil Suit, is a separate remedy, which was available to the appellants/Opposite Parties, and they availed of the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, that no mental agony and physical harassment, as also humiliation, was caused to the complainant, does not appear to be correct. Under these circumstances, the compensation awarded by the District Forum, to the respondent/complainant, could not be said to be unjustified, excessive, unfair or unreasonable. On the other hand, the compensation awarded, could be said to be reasonable, fair and adequate. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
August 13, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg