Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/300/2016

Pushpinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hotel Sidharth Regency - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	300/2016
Date of Institution	:	04.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	03/10/2016

 

                                                

                                                         

Pushpinder Singh s/o Sh.Varinder Singh r/o H.No.3063, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

Hotel Sidharth Regency, 73/12, Ram Bazar, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)-171001 through its Proprietor.           

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Varender Singh, Authorized Agent for the   complainant

                   None for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he booked Standard Double Room with fan for 25^th and 26^th December, 2015 through online (booking.com) against booking No.922.719.115 Pin Code:1114 by paying Rs.2,000/- as advance booking amount through his HDFC Bank account and the same stood credited in the account of the OP vide IMPS Ref. No.535617164618.  He also sent intimation to the OP through e-mail (Annexure C-2) for confirming the booking.  It has further been averred that he alongwith his cousin who had come from USA visited the hotel on 25.12.2015 for staying in the booked room but they were shocked to know that there was no booking in the name of the complainant as according to the version of the hotel employees no booking advance amount was received in the account with UCO Bank. The complainant felt embarrassed and harassed due to non-booking of the room. However, he represented that the booking amount of Rs.2000/- stood debited from his HDFC Bank a/c and stood credited to the account of the OP maintained with the UCO Bank but they did not pay any heed to his genuine requests. Ultimately, he alongwith his cousin stayed in the hotel for 25^th and 26^th December, 2015 against cash payment. After reaching Chandigarh, the complainant requested the OP through e-mail (Annexure C-4)  to refund the advance amount of Rs.2000/- but to no effect.  Finally, he got served a legal notice dated 18.02.2016 (Annexure C-4) to get the refund of his amount. It has further been averred that the act of non-booking the room despite receiving the advance payment and then not refunding the booking amount despite showing payment details amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. hence, this compliant.
2.           In its written statement, the OP has admitted that the complainant made the booking for standard double room with fan for 25.12.2015 and made an advance of Rs.2000/- through his HDFC a/c on 22.12.2015. It has further been pleaded that 25^th December being Christmas was the peak time for visiting Shimla and it was really difficult to get a room in the event of no booking by the OP.  The OP had provided a ‘Super Deluxe Room’ @ Rs.2374/- per day to the complainant for their stay on 25^th and 26^th December, 2015.  It was denied that the advance amount was not adjusted/refunded. In the event, the complainant had any complaints or issue regarding no-adjustment of advance amount then he should have raised the issue at the relevant time.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant had caused damage to the wash basin in the toilet of the hotel room and hence the amount of Rs.2000/- was adjusted towards the damages and the room rent was charged in cash by the OP.  It has further been pleaded that the OP transferred Rs.2000/- to the account of the complainant just to avoid any controversy. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Party controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
4.           On 16.09.2016, none appeared on behalf of the OP when the case was fixed for arguments.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose the complaint under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the OP. We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           After going through the documentary evidence on file, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons recorded hereinafter. The advance booking of the Standard Double Room with fan in the OP-Hotel for 25^th and 26^th December, 2015 against the payment of Rs.2,000/- has not been disputed by the OP.  Admittedly, the OP failed to provide the booked room to the complainant in its hotel despite receipt of Rs.2,000/- towards its booking on 22.12.2015, as is evident from Annexure C-3. Under the compelled circumstances, the complainant and his friend had to stay in the hotel by paying Rs.2,374/- per day irrespective of the fact that the complainant had made the advance booking of the room @ Rs.1781/- per day with the OP.
6.           Moreover the OP, instead of admitting its fault and apologizing the complainant for its mistake, preferred not to return the advance booking amount towards the room until the service of the legal notice by him.  The matter does not rest here. To chagrin of the complainant, to justify its illegal acts not to refund the advance booking amount in time, the OP took a false and concocted plea in its reply that the same was adjusted towards the damages caused to the wash basin of the hotel room by the complainant.  In our considered view, had there been any damages to the wash basin as alleged, then the OP certainly did not allow the complainant and his friend to check out the hotel premises without making good the loss because the room is usually checked by the hotel staff as and when the same is vacated by the customer.
7.           Furthermore, it is not understood that once the OP itself adjusted Rs.2,000/- towards the damages caused to the wash basin of the hotel room then what was the need for it to refund the said amount to the complainant immediately on receipt of the legal notice.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we have, thus, no hesitation in our mind to conclude that the Opposite Party has committed grave deficiency in service by firstly not providing the booked room and secondly by not refunding the booking amount Rs.2,000/- to the complainant immediately and rather they refunded the said amount only after receipt of the legal notice and, therefore, they are definitely liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment undergone by him.
8.           Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a consolidated compensation of Rs.11,000/-. We order accordingly.
9.           This order be complied with by the OP, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
10.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03/10/2016                                                     

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER