Delhi

East Delhi

CC/36/2023

MUKESH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MERCURE GOA DEVAAYA RESORTS & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA

18 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110092

 

 

C.C. No. 36/2023

 

 

	Mukesh Gupta & Ors.
Versus
	Mercure Goa Devaaya Resort & Ors.

 

ORDER

 

 

By this order the Commission shall dispose of the argument of complainant w.r.t. the admitting the complaint.

Present complaint is filed by the complainant alleging that he has visited OP’s hotel on 17.11.21 to attend the wedding ceremony of his relative/family member’s daughter which was four day event from 18.11.21 to 21.11.21. The complainant has been allotted room no. 103 of the OP1 and availed its services for two days from 18.11.21 to 19.11.21. Complainant further alleged that on 21.11.21 all the guests were checking out from the venue of OP1 to reach to another venue and the responsibility of escorting all the guests alongwith their bags from the venue of OP to another venue was upon the OP’s, for which driver and transport was arranged. Complainant submits that at the time of loading the bags he was directed to leave all his five bags in the custody of OPs and upon reaching on the next venue the complainant discovered that he had received only four bags and one of his bag had gone missing, which had valuables, expensive items of the complainant including jewellery, cash and other accessories. Upon checking the CCTV Footage it was evident that all the five bags were loaded in the said van out of which only four were received by the complainant in the presence of OP2. Complainant submits that due to negligence and gross misconduct and failure to perform and fulfill duties on the part of OP, the complainant had suffered monetary loss as well as mental torture and agony for which OPs are liable to compensate the complainant.

Complainant seeks compensation of Rs. 2,35,000/- against the valuable loss, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of the mental agony, pain physical harassment.

The Commission has enquired the complainant about his locus as consumer, it was informed that he is beneficiary of the host who has invited him for attending wedding of his daughter. On further query he has filed one affidavit alongwith amended memo of parties of Mr. Piyush Gupta showing him as complainant no. 2.

On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that there is no corresponding pleading in the complaint explaining the locus of the complainant as consumer. As per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

2 (7) "consumer" means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or.........

 

7) (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. 

 

As per record, no document has been filed by the complainant, as to whether and how he had been associated with the complainant no. 2. Even no wedding card, no Air/Rail ticket in the name of complainant or any other related document filed by the Counsel for complainant. Not only this although the complainant filed amended memo of parties yet has not amended the corresponding para of complaint so as to incorporate all such relevant facts in the complaint and when enquired, as to why the necessary ingredient are not finding mention in the complaint, Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that, the Commission may kindly pass appropriate order on the facts as mentioned.

Keeping in view all the facts and in view of lack of material facts in the complaint and in absence of any consideration having paid by the complainant to OPs, this Commission is of the opinion that complainant on the basis of said facts does not fall within the definition of a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act 2019 and therefore the complaint is rejected.

The File be consigned to the Record Room.

The order contains 04 pages each bears our signature

Pronounced on 18.05.2023.