Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the Judgment and Order dated 04-02-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit II in Complaint Case No. CC/430/2015 dismissing the complaint on contest without any cost against the OP.

The facts of the case, as it reveals on perusal of the record and on hearing the issue as well, are that a team of 16 members which consisted of the Appellant/Complainant, got Room No. 303, 304 and 305 of the Holiday-home of the Respondent/OP located at New Apsara Lodge, at Gangtok, Sikkim booked by one Mamata Sarkar for 3 days, i.e., 17-11-2012, 19-11-2012 and 20-11-2012.  The team also booked Room No. 306 in addition for 20-11-2012.  All the rooms were booked in connection with one family tour on payment of an amount of Rs. 3,500/- @ Rs. 350/- per room per day.

The team, on reaching the spot, booked on the spot the Room No. 306 also for their stay on 17-11-2012 on payment of charges to the Lodge Authority.  They left for outing on 18-11-2012 and booked the same room No. 306 on return at 8.30 p.m. on 19-11-2012 in addition to 3 rooms already booked by them at the Respondent/OP’s office.

At the time of departure when they went to pay to the Office of the Lodge Authority, the charges for food supplied to them during their stay for two days, i.e., on 19-11-2012 and 20-11-2012, the Lodge Authority allegedly claimed from them Rs. 990/- @ Rs. 450/- per room per day for two rooms together with 10% service charge.  Since the additional room was booked for 19-11-2012 by the Appellant/Complainant party, the claim should have been less by Rs. 450/- as alleged in the complaint.  The Appellant/Complainant’s team, having failed to convince the Lodge Authority that Room No. 306 for 20-11-2012 was already booked at the Respondent/OP’s office, had to leave the place on full payment of Rs. 990/- as per demand. 

The Appellant/Complainant, on return, contacted the office of the respondent/OP and gave them the details how the Lodge Authority extracted from them the extra charges.  The Respondent/OP allegedly assured the Appellant/Complainant of required step for refund of the additional amount taken by the Lodge Authority from the Appellant/Complainant’s team.

Appellant/Complainant, thereafter, pursued the promised return on number of occasions visiting the office of the Respondent/OP and also on telephonic conversation.  He also filed a complaint before the Consumer Affairs Department, but no effective result could be derived due to alleged non-cooperation of the Respondent/OP.

The aggrieved Appellant/Complainant then filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum which the impugned Judgment and Order relates to.

Heard the Appellant/Complainant in person and the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/OP.

The Appellant/Complainant submitted that Lodge Authority extorted from his team the rent for the  room that had been booked from the Respondent/OP’s Kolkata office.  In fact, they took the extra room for 19-11-2012 only.  The Lodge Authority claimed the room rents for 19-11-2012 and 20-11-2012 knowing the fact that the Room No. 306 for 20-11-2012 was booked on due payment of charges at the Respondent/OP’s Kolkata office.  As submitted, the Respondent/OP admitted the fault with the assurance of refunding the charges for one room which the team had to pay in excess, but, unfortunately they did not act up to their word.  The Appellant/Complainant continued that his team consisting of all family members felt extremely humiliated because of the aforesaid deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/OP and prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order.

The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/OP, on the other hand, submitted that the Respondent/OP runs the holiday home, hiring the rooms on payment from the Lodge Authority.  The rooms were admittedly hired by the Appellant/Complainant on payment of prescribed room rent.  As submitted, it was also a fact that the booked rooms were duly allotted to the Appellant/Complainant’s team by the Lodge Authority.

The disputed payment relates to the room booked by the Appellant/ Complainant at the spot without informing the Respondent/OP.  The Ld. Advocate went on to submit that the entire incident had taken place out of a nexus between the Appellant/Complainant and the Lodge Authority as neither of them ever bothered to inform about the allocation of the disputed room that had been hired by the Respondent/OP on payment of charges.

The Ld. Advocate drew the notice of the Bench to running page no, 12, marked ‘A’, in the case record wherefrom it appears that clarification has been sought for by the Respondent/OP from the Apsara Lodge Authority for the alleged allocation of the Room No. 306 without their consent and knowledge and also for demanding the extra charges, as alleged, in respect of the said room from the allottee.

The Ld. Advocate drew the notice of the Bench further to running page no. 13, marked “B”, wherein the Manager of the Lodge Authority, acknowledging the fault on their part, has agreed to refund Rs. 495/- (Rs. 450/- + Rs. 45/-) for the allocation of the disputed room received by them in excess.

The Ld. Advocate contended that it would be evident from above, that there was no fault on the part of the Respondent/OP.  The Lodge Authority, who had received the money have not been made a party to the instant case.  The merit of the case has been affected seriously due to non-joinder of parties.

The Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed in the light of the above affirming the impugned Judgment and Order. 

Perused the papers on record, it appears that the booked rooms had duly been allotted to the touring team of the Appellant/Complainant on the dates for which the rooms were booked.  The disputed payment relates to allocation of room on an understanding between the Lodge Authority and the Appellant/Complainant in utter violation of the norms of booking.  The record reveals, the Lodge Authority, while giving clarification for the unauthorized allocation of room in response to the communication made to that effect by the Respondent/OP, has acknowledged their fault and agreed to refund the amount received in excess.

Incidentally, the Lodge Authority has not been made a party to the case.  It further appears that the Appellant/Complainant has not come to file the complaint with clean hands as, they resorted to a dubious manner in booking the room through disputed transaction keeping the Respondent/OP in the dark about such booking knowing it fully well that the Respondent/OP is the organization responsible for booking or allocating their hired rooms. 

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the considered view that the Respondent/OP can, in no way, be made responsible for disputed allocation or transaction and accordingly, the Bench is of the view that the impugned order does not call for any intervention from this end.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal fails.  The impugned Judgment and Order stands affirmed.  No order as to cost.