Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/899/2016

Rishi Kaushal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hotel Mount View and Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

Lovedeep Sareen &Nitesh Singhi, Adv

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	899 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	17.10.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	08.08.2017

 

 

 

 

Rishi Kaushal s/o Sh.Varinder Kaushal, R/o #56, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh UT 

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Hotel Mount View, Sector 10, Chandigarh 160011 through its General Manager.

2]  Chandigarh Industrial & Tourism Development Corp. Ltd., SCO No.121-122, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 

                            ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by: Sh.Nitesh Singhi, Adv. for the complainant

            Sh.Ravi Inder Singh, Adv. for the OPs.

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

          The facts in issue are that the complainant booked Banquet Hall (Confluence) for the party of less than 200 Guests in the Hotel of Opposite Party No.1 and paid Rs.50,000/- as booking amount in cash on31.7.2015 (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that due to some unavoidable circumstances in the family, the function which was to be held on 4.12.2015, was postponed to 1.5.2016 and this was confirmed by the OPs. However, again due to some unavoidable circumstances, the function which was postponed to 1.5.2016, was cancelled.  It is also averred that the complainant vide letter dated 22.1.2016 (Ann.C-2) informed this to General Manager of Opposite Party No.1 with request to cancel the function and refund the booking amount, but the OPs failed to refund the amount.  It is submitted that as per terms & conditions of the agreement (An.C-3), the complainant is entitled for refund as he had timely intimated the OPs on 22.1.2016 for cancellation of the function to be held on 1.5.2016, but despite that the Opposite Parties have failed to refund the amount of booking.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant cancelled the function on 30.11.2015 to be held on 4.12.2015 verbally and he was apprised that as per policy, no refund is permissible if function is cancelled within 15 days from the date of function and the complainant cancelled the function 4 days prior to the date of function i.e. 4.12.2015. It is submitted that when the OPs did not refund the money in terms of their policy, he requested for postponement, which was considered and the function was postponed to 1.5.2016, then in Jan., 2016, he got the function cancelled to be held on 1.5.2016 and claimed refund of 80% amount.  It is also submitted that this shows that the postponement was just an excuse to claim the refund and all this was intentional on his part. It is stated that the complainant never had the intention to conduct any function at any point of time and his intention is to tarnish the image and reputation of the OPs. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegation, the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant has also filed replication reiterating the contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       It is admitted between the parties that the complainant got booked Banquet Hall for the party of less than 200 Guests in the Hotel of Opposite Party No.1 and paid the booking amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash under receipt dated 31.7.2015.  It is again not disputed that the function booked for 4.12.2015 was postponed for 1^st May, 2016.

 

7]       It is apparent that the function as postponed to 1^st May, 2016 was got cancelled by the complainant in the month of Jan., 2016 much before the due date.  It is the stand of the complainant that he rightly claimed refund of 80% of the booking amount as per the refund policy of the OPs.

 

8]       On the contrary, it is the stand of the Opposite Parties that the complainant is not entitled for the claim of refund as he approached the Opposite Parties with request to cancel the function on 30.11.2015 to be held on 4.1.2015 and he was well aware of the refund policy that if the function is got cancelled within 15 days from the date of the function, no refund is permissible. However, being in hospitality sector and retaining a goodwill and name in the market, the OPs on the request of the complainant allowed postponement of the function from 4.12.2015 to 1^st May, 2016, so that his amount does not go waste.  It is claimed that the postponement of the function was just an excuse to claim the refund and all this was intentional on his part as he had never any intention to conduct any function at any point of time.  Thus, the complainant cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong when he was in complete knowledge of the terms & conditions.

 

9]       The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is not tenable in the eyes of law as it is not expected from a prudent person to deposit such a huge amount of Rs.50,000/- without any rhyme and reason, so it cannot be accepted that the complainant was not having any intention to conduct any function at any point of time.  The letter dated 22.1.2016 issued by the complainant as well as the legal notice sent by the complainant reveals that due to unavoidable circumstances in his family, he was constrained to postpone the function and within the proposed/postponed date, the things turned against the complainant and again he was constrained to cancel the booking for which he rightly intimated to the OPs well in time, as per their refund policy.

 

10]      As per the refund policy of the OPs (Ann.C-3), 20% deduction is to be made if the booking is cancelled by giving notice of 3 months prior to the date of function, so the complainant is entitled for the refund of 80% of the booking amount and the Opposite Parties are under liability to refund the same. The complainant is entitled for the above dues for the reason that no services were ever rendered to the complainant or was availed by the complainant from the OPs, courtesy to the cancellation of the booking in question.  It is also mentioned in the reply of the OPs that the request for the postponement of the function was acceded to after due consideration and once they acceded the request of the complainant, then it is not open for the Opposite Parties to relate back the date of cancellation to 30.11.2015 when the complainant approached them allegedly for cancellation of the booking for 4.12.2016. Further, no policy qua postponement of booking has been brought on record by the Opposite Parties.  Moreover, the Opposite Parties have not placed on record any evidence showing that the Banquet Hall booked by the complainant for 4.12.2016 remained vacant (without any booking) on that day and they suffered loss on that account. Hence, deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Parties is writ large.

 

11]      In view of the above findings, we are of the view that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties with following directions:-

1. To refund 80% of the booking amount i.e. Rs.40,000/- to the complainant as per their refund policy;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the parts of OPs
3. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount mentioned in sub-para (a) & (b) above from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from complying with direction as at sub-para (c) above.  

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

8^th August, 2017                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER