Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/224/2018

Manish Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hotel Western Court - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Inder Singh

21 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/224/2018
Date of Institution	:	16/05/2018
Date of Decision	:	21/08/2018

 

Manish Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Kumar, R/o H.No.151, Sec.33-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

Hotel Western Court, through its Manager/Auth. Representative, SCO 103-106, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

       

                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ravi Inder Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
		OP ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Manish Sharma, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Hotel Western Court (hereinafter called the Opposite Party), alleging that on 31.3.2018 he had visited the OP-Hotel, along with his friend for lunch, and after having lunch, paid a sum of Rs.672/- (after getting 30% discount) on the food bill of Rs.835/-.  On perusal of the bill, the Complainant noticed, that after deducting 30% discount on the food bill of Rs.835/-, the final bill should be of Rs.614/-; whereas, the Opposite Party charged a sum of Rs.672/- from him. He immediately pointed out the said miscalculation to the notice of the Restaurant Manager, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
4.         Complainant led evidence.      
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. 
6.         After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Per material on record, it is evident that the Opposite Party after giving a discount of 30% had charged amount of Rs.58/- extra in the food bill. In fact, after deducting 30% discount on the food bill of Rs.835/- the final bill should have been Rs.614/-; whereas, the Opposite Party had charged a sum of Rs.672/- from the Complainant. Further, when asked, the Restaurant Manager refused to accede to the request of the Complainant. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit in support of his case. 
8.         In the present circumstances, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Party who was duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through its Counsel.
9.         It is thus established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. At any rate, the Opposite Party has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have resolved the matter by refunding the amount of Rs.58/- to the Complainant, which it failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. The Opposite Party even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]   To refund the extra charged amount of Rs.58/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from 31.03.2018 till its realization. 

[b]   To pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, and causing mental agony and harassment; 

[c]   To pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from 31.03.2018, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation mentioned at Sr. No. (c) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/08/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”