BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.345/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 20^th July 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                   

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.51,000/- to the complainants with interest at 24% from the date of deposit till repayment with other costs of legal consequences.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainants booked rooms at United 21 Hotel i.e. opposite party No.1 on 03.04.2017 by depositing Rs.25,000/- + Rs.26,000/ with opposite party No.1.  Later, opposite party No.2 take over the management of opposite party No.1.  The attitude and approach of opposite party No.2 was unreasonable and non-co-operative.  Hence, complainant decided to celebrate the marriage at Golden Landmark, Mysuru and requested opposite party No.2 to refund the advance amount.  The same was not paid.  Then complainant approached the manager of opposite party No.1 i.e. Naveen and also approached another person by name Goutham who was Southern Manager of opposite party No.1, they have assured to refund the amount.  But, later, they have not paid the amount, even opposite party No.2 also not paid the amount.  Hence, this complaint is filed.
3.     Notice was served on opposite party Nos.2 and 3, they are absent, placed exparte.  Complainants filed a memo for deleting opposite party No.1.  Accordingly, the name of opposite party No.1 was deleted.  Then complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit evidence and on hearing the arguments, this matter is set down for orders.   
4.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainants establishes that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, thereby they are entitled for reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

5.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

6.    Point No.1:- Admittedly, the transaction was with opposite party No.1 by the present complainants, they have paid the advance for the purpose of booking rooms at opposite party No.1 hotel.  Subsequently, the complainants came to know that the management of the hotel was taken over by the opposite party No.2. i.e. Hotel M.B.International.  it is further contention of complainants that on came to know about this fact, they have approached opposite party No.2 and the attitude and approach of opposite party No.2 was unreasonable and non-cooperative and opposite party No.2 straight away rejected the claim of the complainant for refund of the advance amount, then this complainants approached one Naveen, Manager and another person by name Goutham, Southern Manager of opposite party No.1.  There was positive response from Goutham, who assured to repay the amount.  But, there is no progress in refunding the amount.  Hence, this complaint is filed.  Accordingly, the complainants sought for an order in their favour.
7.    No doubt, the complainants have paid the amount to opposite party No.1 i.e. Hotel United 21.  But, to the surprise name of opposite party No.1 was deleted in the proceedings by the complainant and there is no complaint pending against opposite party No.1 now.  In such circumstances, whether the complainant can seek reliefs against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is a point?  No doubt, the receipts were issued in the name of complainants separately. In this Hotel M.B.International has endorsed “we came to know that this amount of Rs.26,000/- + Rs.25,000/- even paid for United 21, Mysuru”.  Thereby, there is no contact between opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and present complainants. As such, there cannot be any liability on the part of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 in refunding the amount in question and transaction was with opposite party No.1 hotel United 21 that not been deleted by the complainants.  Thereby, this Forum finds that there cannot be any liability on the part of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 in the absence of the person who is received amount in advance i.e. opposite party No.1.  As such, the complainants failed to establish the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party Nos.2 and 3.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
8.   Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, complainants are not entitled for any reliefs.   Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed. 
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 20^th July 2018)