State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashok Khurana vs 1. Chandigarh Industrial And Tourism ... on 5 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 329 of 2013 Date of Institution : 31.07.2013 Date of Decision : 05.08.2013 Ashok Khurana s/o Late Sh.Lajpat Rai Khurana, R/o H.No.519, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh. Appellant/complainant. V e r s u s 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. ....Respondent/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Harjot Singh Bedi, Advocate for the appellant.
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 appellant), and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), 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 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). It was 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 and laying of the lunch, in some other hall, caused 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 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 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, against the inadequate compensation, awarded by the District Forum, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, as also humiliation, was caused to the appellant/complainant, on account of change of venue for the lunch, in the same Hotel. He further submitted that a number of guests, had to leave the ceremony, without taking lunch, on account of this reason. He further submitted that, keeping in view the tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, as also humiliation, caused to the complainant, compensation awarded by the District Forum, could not be said to be fair, reasonable and adequate. He further submitted that compensation was required to be awarded, by the District Forum, keeping in view the status of the complainant, but it failed to do so. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum was liable to be modified, by way of enhancing the amount of compensation.
11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, 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 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. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that, on account of change of the venue for laying lunch, in the same Hotel, at the last moment, inconvenience was caused to some of the guests of the complainant, and some of them, might have left, without taking the same (lunch). A tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, as also humiliation, was caused to the complainant, on account of change of venue for lunch, in some other hall, of the same Hotel, by the Opposite Parties. However, it may be stated here, that compensation to be awarded, for such mental agony and physical harassment, as also humiliation, caused to the complainant, was required to be commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case and injury caused to him (complainant). In the instant case, keeping in view the tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, as also humiliation, caused to the complainant, on account of the change of venue for lunch, in some other hall, in the same Hotel, at the last moment, by the Opposite Parties, the District Forum, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs, to the tune of Rs.7,000/. Not only this, penal clause was also stipulated, that, in case, the amount of compensation aforesaid was not paid, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order impugned, the Opposite Parties were to pay interest @12% P.A., on the same (amount of compensation) from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation. In our considered opinion, the compensation awarded by the District Forum, could certainly be said to be reasonable, fair and adequate. In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect, that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the hands of the service providers, by awarding unfair, unjust and excessive compensation. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. The appellant is, thus, not entitled to the enhancement of compensation. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
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 5, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg