Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1149/2008

N.Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Claridges Hotel Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

 

    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                        (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                                     ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                             NEW DELHI-110001

 

        CC. No./1149/2008                                                         Dated:

         In the matter of:

1.         N. Mohan,

          Administrative Head,

                 Tecnova India Pvt. Ltd.

     Gurgaon.                                                           …… Complainant no. 1

 

 

2. Tecnova India Pvt. Ltd.,

335, Udyog Vihar Phase 1V,

Gurgaon (Haryana)

                                                                                                 .…… Complainant no. 2

 

Versus

1. The Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd.,

 12-Aurangzeb Road,

 New Delhi – 110011                                              ……. Opposite Party no. 1

 

 

2. American Express Banking Corp.,

 Post Box No.346,

 Connaught Place, New Delhi.                                ……. Opposite Party no. 2

 

            H.M.VYAS : MEMBER

ORDER

Initially, the complaint was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by the OP and claimed  for the following reliefs:-

 The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 09/07/2008 transferred the case to this Forum observing that the amount of compensation including refund of amount of Rs. 6,48,000/- would not exceeding Rs. 20 lacs, the interest @ 24% is claimed without there being any contract between the parties for payment of interest at the said rate. Where there is no term is to the liberty of the payment of interest, interest claimed does not form the part of the compensation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction as the question. Whether the complainant is entitled for interest or not or if so, at what rate and for what period is always subject to final adjudication.

In the complaint it is alleged that the complainants to facilitate the boarding and lodging arrangements of the prospective delegates, entered into negotiations between OP-1 and given the tentative list of 22 delegates to the OP-1 in October 2007. The OP-1 and the complainant agreed that the OP-1 tentatively block 22 rooms for the delegates and would correspond and communicate directly with the proposed delegates to confirm about their visit and the date of arrival and stay at the time of tentative booking. The complainant no.-1 in good faith signed some documents and gave the details of his credit card as asked by the OP-1 to enable OP-1 to tentatively block the dates for the delegates. The complainant no.-1 an authorized representative of OP no.-2 sent e-mail dated 16/11/2007 giving the details of American Express Corporate Card mentioning there in “ please note that the above details are given only for the guarantee purpose and do not debit any amount since occupants of the rooms will be sending you the details of their credit cards directly”. The booking of 22 rooms was for the period of 23/02/2008 to 28/02/2008. However at the instance of OP-1 till the Hotel management contacted the prospective occupants and received their confirmation, the complainant no.-1 is order to show the bonafide  agreed and provided details of the credit card. After the OP-1 contacted and intimated that the confirmation from 14 delegates has been received and requested the complainants to confirm the status about the remaining 8 delegates and the complainants also confirmed the same, on 11/02/2008. An e-mail from Sh. Sunny Ghai,  Associate Director of Sales, The Claridges, New Delhi, was received by complainant expressing their inability to cancel the booking of said 8 rooms and referred to the documents wherein, it was mentioned that “ for rooms released prior to 15/11/2007 no retention charges shall be charged from 15/11/2007 to 15/12/2007 one night retention will be charged and post 15/12/2007 full retention charge will be charged for the entire duration. The complainant vide e-mail dated 12/02/2008 explaining to the OP-1 normally cancellation policy with every hotel is 48 hours and not for one and half months, therefore, the rate of Rs. 14,000/- as retention charges for cancel the room would not be chargeable for complaint. Thereafter the complainant learnt deduction of Rs. 6,48,000/- from his bank statement issued by OP-2 from the credit card. The complainant represented to OP-2 bank by letter dated 07/04/2008 and requested not to accept any charge whatsoever and reverse the same. 6,48,000/- debited at the instance of OP-1. The OP-1 again sent letter dated 30/04/2008 shown its inability to resolve alleging indigence in respect of unfair trade practice on the part of OPs the present complaint is filed.

The OP-1 and OP-2 filed their respective version/written statement denying all allegations. The OP-1 has specifically referred to the letter dated 16/11/2007 of the complainant where in the complainant is under guaranty while booking the 22 rooms. It is stated that the complainant and OP are bound by the contract entered on 29/10/2007and the complainant cannot tuned around from thee terms of contract further it is stated that the OP was acting on behalf of complainant for getting confirmation of 22 rooms of which the tentative list of guest/delegation was provided by him. The guaranty of payment of booking of 22 rooms as per the contract  dated 22/10/2007. Since the complainant was to provided with regard to the change in the booking rooms  before 15/12/2007 and that the final list was intimated by the complainant to the OP telephonic on 04/02/2008 confirming only 14 rooms instead of 22 thus  this late release of 8 rooms on the part of complainant resulted to lose of business for 40 rooms nights. The OP has charged a sum of Rs. 6,48,000/-( Tex inclusive that 48 nights) all other allegation alleged byu the complainant have been denied.

The OP-2 in its version/ written statement denied any deficiency in service on the its part and the debiting of amount 6,48,000/- from the corporate order of the complainant was in pursuance of claim of the OP1, since there was a contract entered in to between the complainant and OP-1, the same was given effect regarding payment of the claimed amount by OP-1. Further it is stated that the OP-1 and the complainants are engaged  in commercial activities and the deputed transactions were carried out for the purpose of promoting the business of the complainant, a commercial activity and as such the complainant is not the Consumer within the definition under the Consumer Protection Act.

All the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit supporting their respective contention. The complainant filed written arguments. Oral arguments addressed by all the parties.

We have considered the material placed before us and the arguments of the parties with relevant provision of law.

The undisputed facts in the case are that the complainants booked 22 rooms with the OP-1 after negotiation in October 2007, for the prospective  delegates and also provided guaranty by sharing  the details of their corporate card. The period of visit of the delegates was 23/02/2008 to 28/02/2008. On 30/10/2007 the contract was signed. On 11/02/2008, OP informed inability to cancel the booking of 8 rooms as 14 delegates confirm their arrival. The sum of Rs. 6,48,000/- for 40 night i.e. (8×5=40) It is also not to dispute but final list of visiting delegates was not supplied by the complainant up to 15/12/2007 as per the terms of booking.

It is admitted by the complainant that he being the authorized representative of the complainant no. 2, booked 22 rooms with the OP for meeting and conference of foreign delegates in the premises. It is clear that the complainant though booked the rooms which reflects the purpose of enhancing the business prospective, yet it is accepted position that the complainant sought services of the OPs for rooms against consideration and the services of the OP-2 concerning transactions of the Corporate Card. The objection of OP-2 that complainants are not consumer is therefore not tenable to pay to OP.  Further, the complainant had given its guaranty, obviously to indemnify the OP-1 for the charges against the booking of the rooms. Sheer putting the condition in a subsequent communication the contract entered into does not initiate the agreed terms. We, therefore, hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted of the OPs, while charging Rs. 6,48,000/- for the rooms of which the communication of inability to cancel was sent by the OP-1 and debiting said amount through the card of the complainants. Further, we hold that action of OP-2 also cannot come within the purview of deficiency in service. The complaint is accordingly dismissed in above terms.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 04/01/2019_.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                 (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                               MEMBER