Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/724/2019

Dr. Umesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Piccadily Hotel - Opp.Party(s)

Harsh Raheja

16 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/724/2019
Date of Institution	:	19/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	16/02/2021

 

Dr. Umesh Kumar, aged about 34 years son of Sh. Sita Prasad Sahu, resident of B-0023/398, First Floor, Sector 125, Kharar, Greater Mohali, Landmark Opposite Easy Day, Near North Country Mall NH 21 & above Canara Bank.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Piccadily Hotel, Sector 22B, Chandigarh through its Directors.
2. Utkarsh Sharma, General Manager, Piccadily Hotel, Sector 22B, Chandigarh.
3. Kuldeep, Banquet Manager, Piccadily Hotel, Sector 22B, Chandigarh
4. Sohan Singh, Restaurant Manager, Piccadily Hotel Sector 22B.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harsh Raheja, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Abhay Josan, Vice Counsel for Sh. Karan Nehra, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      Averments are, complainant on 15.4.2019 had booked a 50 members hall of the OP Hotel for the birthday celebration of his daughter scheduled for 8.5.2019.  His case is, besides other things, it was settled between the complainant and OP-1 that candles which would be placed on the cake be given back to him as it was ritual in his family to keep the same in their temple at home. It was also agreed OP-3 will hand over the remaining/left over cake to the complainant for distribution among poor people. Further case is, around 30 members reached the birthday party, though the arrangement was made for 50 people, but the OPs hotel staff was reckless and did not serve the snacks and other refreshment properly and service was poor. Complainant also requested the OP hotel staff to provide fresh and hot food. Averred, OP-3 did not pack the remaining cake nor it preserved the candles as settled between them.  The matter was brought to the notice of the OPs, but, despite of assurance the left out cake and burnt candles could not be located and handed over to the complainant. Hence, the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and filed the present consumer complaint for directing OPs to pay compensation of ₹1,50,000/-, ₹55,000/- as litigation expenses and to grant reward whatever deemed fit by this Commission.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written reply and claimed facts disclosed do not constitute any deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as a matter of fact, present consumer complaint is vexatious and meritless. It was denied complainant had asked the OPs to preserve the candles or the left out cake. Maintained, on protest being raised, on the next day, as a goodwill gesture, another cake was got prepared, but, the complainant refused to accept the same. Claimed, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     The disputed facts are, it was nowhere agreed or expressed by the complainant to preserve the left out cake and the burnt candles. It is the case of the OPs, there was no left out cake having been eaten by the complainant and his guests and the candles had totally burnt. Therefore, the question of preserving them or making them over to the complainant does not arise at all.  It is a matter of common sense, when birthday cake after ceremonies is put to guests, there is no restriction how much a guest should eat so as to ensure there remains left out cake for being handed over to the complainant. It is also unnatural, a person who holds a lavish party worth more than ₹50,000/- in a hotel will ask his guests to restrict eating the cake so as to ensure remainder is left for distribution among poor.  If a person is so conscious, a separate cake or say it could have been preserved by the complainant himself for its distribution among poor people. 
7.     It is the case of OPs, complainant had brought his own cake and there is also cake order form (Annexure C-5) which shows it was purchased from Ovenfresh against payment of ₹2,000/- and the cake was weighing 2.5 kgs. This shows it was not prepared by OPs, but, by Ovenfresh. Therefore, it appears to be unusual such instructions were given to the OPs to ensure there remains unused cake.
8.     The second deficiency in service which the complainant has allegated is, he had asked the OPs to preserve the unburnt candles. The candles in the birthday ceremony are small sized and thin in shape and generally finish off. Thus, it appears abnormal that such an order could be given to the service provider that the same have to be kept unburnt to some extent to preserve the same.  On the other hand, it was denied there was any such order for compliance by the OP hotel and their officials. Annexure C-2 (with rejoinder) further shows there was a communication through chat with the management of OP hotel they should replace same cake and get it delivered. How it was possible if the cake was finished off when the ceremony was over. The perusal of Annexure C-4 dated 26.5.2019 shows 3 Kgs. mixed fruit cake from Ovenfresh was given to Mr. Sohan to get it delivered in the house of the complainant.  This further shows that when something was raised that 3 Kgs. mixed fruit cake was offered.  We have already assigned the reasons there does not seem to be a possibility to keep the cake uneaten by the guests.
9.     A perusal of the prayer clause further shows compensation for mental and physical harassment is prayed to the tune of ₹1,50,000/- and no other deficiency in service is allegated. The complainant has also prayed whatever reward this Commission deems fit should be granted so that it could be distributed among poor people or for treatment of the poor people. We are to travel within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act which speaks of protection of the consumer so that he is not exploited at the hands of the vendor on account of practicing deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. This is not an institution which collects charge and ensures its distribution among the poor people. We are to work within legal parameters of law.
10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reasons to hold there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. There seems to be sentimental injury to the complainant and not actual one. The consumer complaint is meritless and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/02/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President