State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
N. Mohan, vs The Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd. on 9 July, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 09-07-2008 Complaint Case No. 08/124 1. Mr. N. Mohan, Administrative Head, Tecnova India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon. . . . Complainant No.1 2. Tecnova India Pvt. Ltd. 335, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana. . . . Complainant No.2 Versus 1. The Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd. 12-Aurangazeb Road, New Delhi 110001. . Opposite Party No.1 2. American Express Banking Corporation, Post Box No. 346, Connaught Place, New Delhi. . Opposite Party No.2 CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, President Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. The complaint is being taken up at the stage of admission. Through this complaint, the complainant has claimed refund of Rs. 6,48,000/- with interest @24% debited on its credit card towards booking amount of the Hotel and Rs. 20.00 Lakhs as compensation for unfair trade practice and Rs. 20.00 Lakhs for negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party (O.P in short).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that it is a part of International Business Association which regularly holds meetings/conference of all the partner associates. For the year 2008, this meeting was scheduled to be held in New Delhi between 23rd to 28th February, 2008. The complainant being the host agreed to assist and facilitate making arrangements including boarding and lodging. Accordingly, it tentatively identified the requirements of approximately 22 rooms for 22 delegates which were subject to confirmation by such delegates. The complainant and O.P.1 agreed that the O.P.1 would tentatively block 22 rooms for the proposed 22 delegates and would correspond and communicate directly with the proposed delegates to confirm as to whether such delegates were coming for the conference and the exact date of arrival and stay. The responsibility of getting confirmation and finalizing the details was that of O.P. 1 as per the list of delegates alongwith their addresses and telephone numbers, e-mail addresses etc. given by the complainant and theO.P.1 was also to get individual credit card details from the prospective delegates for the said purpose. However, on the inducement of O.P.1, the complainant signed a document purportedly for the purpose of making tentative bookings and so as to enable the O.P.1 to block the dates, O.P.1 also took the credit card details of the complainants even though it was clearly agreed and understood that the credit card was not to be used as the O.P.1 was to directly contact the guests for finalizing their booking and itinerary and take their credit card details directly for payments. The complainant No.1 being the authorized representative of complainant No.2 simultaneously sent an e-mail giving his American Express Corporate Card No. 376941157152001 specifically stating that the said details were being given only for guarantee purpose and no amount was to be debited into that credit card account since the occupants of the rooms would be sending them the details of their credit cards directly.
3. However, a few weeks before the conference was to take place, O.P.1 informed the complainant that had received confirmation from only 14 guests out of 22 and thus requested the complainant to confirm the status about the remaining 8 delegates. The complainant also confirmed that as per their record only 14 delegates were coming. However, O.P.1 expressed its inability to cancel the booking or rooms made for 8 delegates and referred to the afore mentioned routine document as a contract between O.P.1 and the complainant. Further it was intimated to the complainant that as per policy of O.P.1 post-15th December, 2007, full retention charges would be charged for the entire duration of the stay as per the actual reservation made. O.P.1 brushing aside all the objections raised by the complainant debited an amount of Rs. 6,48,000/- in its Credit Card Account with O.P.2. O.P.2 in turn expressed its inability to resolve the problem on the ground that the complainant had authorized O.P.1 to charge its card and requested the complainant to resolve the dispute with O.P.1 directly. Though the complainant requested O.P.2 to reverse the debit immediately but the amount still stands debited on which hefty interest is being levied by O.P.1. It was also made clear to O.P.2 that the complainant would not be liable to make any payment to O.P.2 as it had neither authorized any payment nor accepted any charge nor signed any charge slip and debit was made unilaterally by O.P.1 without the knowledge of the complainant.
4. In view of the huge amount of compensation claimed by the complainant a question has been raised whether the State Commission has the jurisdiction to decide at admission stage of the complaint whether the claim of the complainant is exaggerated and/or is at its whim or fancy and accordingly return or transfer it to the appropriate Forum on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction or the State Commission has to accept the claim and valuation of compensation as put by the complainant so as to decide pecuniary jurisdiction.
5. In several cases, Benches presided by Honble President of the National Commission have taken a consistent view that State Commission and for that purpose the National Commission have jurisdiction to decide at admission stage as to the claim of the complainant is exaggerated or not and it is not for the complainant to justify its claim at the time of hearing of the complaint to justify its claim by leading necessary evidence. According to these decisions, it is rather the duty of the State Commission to decide whether the complaint was required to be entertained on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction or not.
6. In this regard we deem it necessary to refer to some of the decisions of the Benches presided by the Honble President and other Benches, which are as under:-
(i) Appeal No. 95/2007 - Anil K. Jain & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS.
RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Puneet Jain Advocate with Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate.
22.02.2007 Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the State Commission ought not to have transferred the complaint to the District Forum for consideration because the claim of the complainant was for a sum of Rs. 34.00 Lakhs. He submitted that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to decide at admission stage that the claim of the complainant was exaggerated and it was for the complainant to justify its claim at the time of hearing of the complaint before the State Commission by leading necessary evidence.
In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference.
It is not necessary that the State Commission should admit such complaint and keep it pending for years. If such complaints are kept pending before the Consumer Fora then the entire purpose and object of rendering speedy justice to the consumers would be frustrated.
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Fora have to find out whether the complaint is maintainable or not and with regard to the admissibility of the complaint, Consumer Fora are required to decide within 21 days from the date on which the complaint was received.
Hence, it was the duty of the State Commission to decide whether the complaint was required to be entertained on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and that has been done in the present case.
(ii) Appeal No. 304 of 1998 - J.C. Batra Vs. M/s Royal Jordanian.
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri P.R. Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Shri U.A. Rana, Advocate.
Shri Prashant K. Thakur, Advocate.
Dated the 01st day of February 2007 O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The State Commission by the impugned order dated 21- 08-1998 arrived at a conclusion that the claim made by the complainant was grossly exaggerated.
Hence, the complaint was returned with directions that, if so advised, the complainant may approach the District Forum after putting in proper valuation amount of compensation.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and we also feel that even if there is an alleged deficiency, the claim is grossly exaggerated. Therefore, the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference.
The appeal is therefore dismissed. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 5000/- as costs to the respondent. It would be open to the complainant to approach the District Forum by filing complaint.
7. Another decision of a Two-Member Bench, presided by Honble Justice K.S. Gupta, is First Appeal No. 776 of 2006 titled Mr. Anil Khanna & Anr. Vs. M/s J.M.D. Promoters Ltd. decided on 14-01-2007. Order reads as under:-
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE P.D. SHENOY, MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 1-11-2006 of State Commission, Delhi, transferring the complaint to the concerned District Forum holding that at any rate compensation of more than Rs. 20.00 lakhs cannot be granted to the appellants/ complainants. Copy of the complaint is at pages 14-18. Prayer clause of the complaint which is material, reads as under:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Commission may be pleased to:-
a) Direct the opposite party to sell the flat to the complainants at the rate on which they had taken the first instalment i.e. Rs. 32,50,000/-.
b) Direct the opposite party to supply all necessary documents to the complainants as required by them for raising loan.
c) Direct the opposite party to pay compensation to the complaints to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the unfair practice, harassment, mental torture and by way of compensation.
Prayer made in pith and substance is for passing direction to the respondent/opposite party to sell the flat at the agreed rate, supply documents as required by the appellants for raising loan and pay Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. In the complaints filed before Consumer Fora ad-valorem court fee is not paid.
Obviously, amount of Rs. 32,50,000/- in said sub-clause
(a) was included to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission which minus that amount can be entertained by a District Forum. In this backdrop, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
8. Recently a two-Members Bench presided by Justice R.C. Jain, a former Judge of High Court, in Appeal No.710 of 2007 titled Devender Malhotra, Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. decided on 20-02-2008 taken the view that State Commission or for that purpose National Commission has no power to examine the pecuniary value of the complaint at the stage of admission and has to decide the jurisdiction as per value and compensation claimed by the complainant. Observations of the Bench are as under:-
No forum constituted under the Act will be within its right to put its own value either by reducing or enhancing the value put by a complainant under the assumption that ultimately the complaint may not be able to sustain his claim beyond a particular amount. Doing so would amount to prejudging the complaint. A complainant is entitled to place such value on his complaint and to claim such compensation as he deems proper and the valuation so put by the complainant shall decide the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a constituted under the Act, rather than the value substituted by a forum.
9. In our view the view taken by Benches presided by the Honble Presidents and other Benches shall prevail firstly because of there being unvarying unanimity of these Benches and secondly because of the President of National Commission having exercised higher jurisdiction, than Members of National Commission, having remained the Judge of Supreme Court.
10. In our view the amount claimed is highly exaggerated, whimsical and fanciful and has been claimed with the sole object of invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission. Object of Consumer Protection Act is not to enrich the consumers unjustly.
11. Even if the aforesaid allegations are proved to be true, still the amount compensation including refund of the amount of Rs. 6,48,000/- debited, would not exceed Rs. 20.00 Lakhs. The interest @ 24% is claimed without there being any contract between the parties for payment of interest at the said rate. Where there is no term as to the liability of payment of interest, interest claimed does not form part of compensation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction as the question whether the complainant is entitled for any interest or not and if so at what rate and for what period is always subject to final adjudication.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, in order to avoid further inconvenience to the complainant by filing a fresh complaint, we instead of returning the complaint, are transferring the complaint to the District Forum. The complainant shall appear before the district Forum on 19-08-2008.
13. The complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Copy of order, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the complainant and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK