State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Country Inn And Suites By Radission vs Lalit Mohan Gupta on 25 August, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.283 of 2021
Date of institution : 17.08.2021
Date of Reserve : 10.08.2023
Date of Decision : 25.08.2023
1. Country Inn and Suites by Radisson, Sahibabad, 64/6, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad (U.P.)-210010, through its Manager/MD (a Unit of
Magnum Ventures Ltd.).
2. Managing Director, Country Inn and Suites by Radisson,
Sahibabad, 64/6, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.)-210010.
3. Smt.Lalita Sharma, Sales Executive, Country Inn and Suites by
Radisson, Sahibabad, 64/6, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.) 201010.
.......Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Lalit Mohan Gupta, Advocate, son of Sh.Bimal Gupta resident of
Adarsh Nagar, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
.......Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
against the Order dated 05.07.2021
passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission,
Faridkot.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present :-
For the appellants : Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the respondent : Ms. Niharika Gupta, Advocate
F.A.No.283 of 2021
2
SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER
Appellants/Opposite parties i.e.Country Inn and Suites by Radisson & Ors. have filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short 'The Act') being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridkot (in short 'the District Commission') whereby the complaint filed by the complainant-Lalit Mohan Gupta was allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the complainant before the District Commission were that complainant- Sh.Lalit Mohan Gupta being influenced by advertisements of OPs through internet, print media and other modes that they provide the best services, the complainant got convinced by such gesture and made up his mind to organize a function in the month of February 2020 at their hotel having accreditation of 4 stars. For this purpose, he approached OP No.3 to organize a function in their hotel in the month of February, 2020. OP No.3 asked the complainant to deposit Rs.2 lac as token amount to show his bona fide for negotiations/planning/booking of their hotel for the scheduled date. It was agreed between the parties that in case such negotiations did not materialize, then the amount of Rs.2 lacs so deposited by complainant with them would be refunded by the OPs. Accordingly, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2 lac with OPs on F.A.No.283 of 2021 3 19.06.2019. However, the proposal to hold function in the said premises did not materialize. Thereafter the complainant asked for refund of his money i.e. Rs.2 lac, but OPs kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately they flatly refused to refund the same. The complainant had initially requested the OPs and thereafter he served legal notices upon them to refund the said amount, but all in vain. Despite repeated efforts, OPs did not pay any heed to the requests of complainant. This act of OPs had resulted in harassment and caused mental agony to the complainant.
4. Stating to be a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of OPs, the complaint was filed by the complainant for issuance of directions to OPs to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- so deposited by him on 19.06.2019 along with interest @18% per annum and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment. Further OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. Upon issuance of notice by the District Commission, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their reply by raising certain preliminary objections stating therein that complaint was not maintainable as the complainant could not take the benefits of his own wrongs. He had not come to the District Commission with clean hands. The complainant had filed the complaint with ulterior motive and was not falling under the definition of consumer. The District Commission had no jurisdiction to try the complaint as alleged service provider belonged to Ghaziabad and it was not having any branch at Faridkot. Therefore, no cause of action had occurred at Faridkot as F.A.No.283 of 2021 4 all the bookings were made by the complainant at the hotel of OPs at Sahibabad, U.P. Moreover, detailed evidence was required to prove the case which was not possible in the summary proceedings of Consumer Forum. At the best it could have been adjudicated before Civil Court. On merits, OPs had denied all other the allegations and stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant had approached OPs on 12.06.2019 through his authorized representative, who after understanding the price structure and visiting the venue had expressed their desire to book the hotel premises for wedding function. The said representative booked the banquet hall for 23rd, 24th and 25th February, 2020 for lunch for 50, 50 and 100 guests respectively, 400 guests in GBR Hall, 25 rooms for 23rd& 24th February, 2020 and 80 rooms along with one computer room for 25th February, 2020. Ultimately the rates were decided to be Rs.5000/-per room per day. The representative of the complainant was informed at the time of booking that due to heavy reservation OP No.1 had to lock hold most of its rooms for the said dates/period. Any cancellation would attract a forfeiture of 30% of total amount of booking consideration which was agreed upon as Rs.21,21,000/-. It was only after confirmation of booking by the complainant that an amount of Rs.2 lac as token money was to be accepted by the OPs. Meaning thereby all terms and conditions were communicated to the complainant/authorized representative before the commencement of booking of the said hotel premises. They were infact entitled to withhold the token amount @ 30% of total booking amount. It was further averred that there was no deficiency in service on the part of F.A.No.283 of 2021 5 answering OPs and all the allegations leveled by complainant were denied. They had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the District Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. No cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Faridkot as all the bookings and signing of guest request from between the parties had taken place at Ghaziabad. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent had not deposited the required earnest money which was 30% of entire booking amount as per booking agreement. The respondent had paid the partial amount only. So in this situation according to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Statish Batra Vs. Sudhir Rawal", Civil Appeal No.7588 of 2012, decided on 18.10.2012, wherein it was held that the earnest money was a guarantee that a contract had been performed and as per contract, it was permissible to forfeit entire earnest money deposit. The respondent himself had cancelled the booking, it was not a case of any deficiency in service on the part of appellants/OPs. For the reasons as mentioned above, the appeal is liable to be allowed as prayed for. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case "Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.", Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004, decided on 20.10.2009, and judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in case "Puran Chand Wadhwa Vs. Hamil Era Textiles Ltd.", Revision Petition No.147 of 2000, decided on 26.08.2003 in support of his arguments.
F.A.No.283 of 20216
7. Ms. Niharika Gupta, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that appellants had given advertised of their hotel through internet, print media and other modes and projected their services of high quality. The respondent was a renowned and respectable citizen of Faridkot and was also a Senior Tax Advocate. He being busy in professional obligations believed the contents of the advertisement as well as the marketing pleas taken by the appellants/OPs. Due to the smart marketing tactics of the appellants, he readily made up his mind to organize a wedding function in their hotel premises. The respondent contacted the appellant in the month of June 2019. The appellants asked the respondent to deposit a token money of Rs.2 lac on 19.06.2019 in order to start negotiations for booking for the scheduled dates to prove his bonafide. It was also agreed between the parties that in case the negotiations did not materialize, the said amount of Rs.2 lac would be refunded. However, the mutual agreement could not be finalized and the respondent demanded his amount back. The appellants/OPs had bluntly refused to refund his amount and threatened him by saying that he was from other state and they had many political links in their area. The respondent had neither utilized any of the services including the hall, electricity, food or any other services of the appellant nor he visited the premises. The appellants/OPs had illegally withheld his hard earned money of Rs.2 lac since 19.06.2019. Learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
F.A.No.283 of 20217
8. By considering the averments made in the complaint as well as in the reply thereof, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 05.07.2021. The relevant part of said order is reproduced as under:-
"10 From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence produced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not refunding the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to complainant. There is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it caused harassment to complainant. Therefore, present complaint is hereby allowed against OPs and OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Two lacs) to complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousands) as compensation to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.3000/- for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room."
9. The appellants/OPs have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the District Commission by raising a number of arguments.
10. We have heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for both the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission as well as the relevant documents available on the file.
F.A.No.283 of 20218
11. Facts relating to filing of complaint by the complainant before the District Commission, reply thereof and after hearing the oral arguments raised by both the parties and passing of impugned order dated 05.07.2021 by the District Commission and thereafter filing of present appeal before this Court by the appellants/OPs are not in dispute.
12. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant had booked hotel premises of appellants/OPs for a consideration amount of Rs.21.51 lac. A tentative schedule for booking of banquet halls/rooms was given to the appellants/OPs and respondent/complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2 lac with OPs towards said bookings. Subsequently both the parties could not reach at any settlement and it was cancelled. It is a matter of record that the respondent/complainant had not deposited 30% of the total consideration amount as mutually agreed by the parties.
13. The issue for determination by us is as to whether the appellants/OPs can withhold the token amount of Rs.2 lac paid by the respondent/complainant as booking charges or not ?
14. We have perused all the relevant documents thoroughly, admittedly a pre-booking guest request form dated 15.06.2019 was submitted, which was signed by the representative of the respondent/complainant. The appellants/OPs have admitted a receipt of Rs.2 lac (Ex.OP-7). The appellants/OPs have placed on record the contents of the text messages as transpired between the parties whereby it was communicated to respondent/complainant to deposit F.A.No.283 of 2021 9 the rest of the 30% of booking amount but there is no reference of any forfeiture of security deposit/amount. We have also perused the contents of the contract i.e. Ex.OP-6, which was signed by the Hotel Representative only. This document does not bear any signature of complainant/authorized representative. Meaning thereby this contract was not valid as the agreement comes into force only if the same is signed by both the parties. Thus, the plea as taken by the appellants/OPs that they were entitled to withhold an amount of 30 % of the total consideration amount falls flat as neither the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract were supplied to the respondent/complainant nor signed by him or his authorized representative. The appellants/OPs have also raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction as per the provision the CP, Act, 1986. As per Section 11 (1) (c) of the CP, Act, 1986, the District Forum (now Commission) has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the cause of action, wholly are in part, arises. Admittedly in the present case only the token money was paid through NEFT to the appellants/OPs from Faridkot. As such the part of cause of action had arisen at Faridkot and the District Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants is repelled.
15. The District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order dated 05.07.2021 for the reasons mentioned above. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the District Commission is upheld. F.A.No.283 of 2021 10
16. The appellants had deposited an amount Rs.1,20,200/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission. The said amount, along with interest which has accrued on the amount deposited by the appellant, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for release of the same and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law.
17. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly, disposed of.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER August 25, 2023 (Rupinder 2)