J U D G E M E N T
Claiming himself as a consumer, under the C. P. Act, 1986, the complainant has sought for interference of this Forum in respect of fact complained of.
In a summarizing, the case of the Complaint, is that, the Complainant had booked 25 hotel beds comprising as one 4 bed room, one 3 bed room and rest nine double bed non–AC rooms situated on the 1st and 2nd floor in the Opposite Party Hotel on 15.08.2014 due to his daughter’s marriage for accommodation of guests on and from 24.11.2016 at 04 a.m. till 25.11.2014 at 1.30 p.m. for total consideration amount of Rs. 18,000/- only out of which the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only towards the Opposite Party as advance. Thereafter the Complainant further asked the Opposite Party before 10 days of the actual date of marriage to arrange more rooms for 5 persons on and from 23.11.2014 at 04 a.m. which the Opposite Party had agreed to provide without any extra charges.
But at the scheduled day 5 persons has come on 23.11.2014, another 8 persons came on 24.11.2014 at 06 a.m. and more 5 persons came on 24.11.2014 at 08 a.m. but the Opposite Party has provided only 8 double bed rooms for these 18 persons and they has compelled to adjust forcibly therein. After that more 2 persons has come on 24.11.2014 at 11 a.m. but no room was provided to them by the Opposite Party for which these persons bound to arrange their rooms in some different Hotel named Blue Diamond at cost of Rs. 2,200/- only of their own. The Complainant sent a person for getting the accommodation as per his booking but the Opposite Party did not provide the same in spite of receiving the total sum of Rs. 20,000/- only (Rs. 18,000/- only plus Rs. 2,000/- only for booking rooms on 23.11.2014) paid by the Complainant as room rent. The Complainant had to send more 5 persons to some other places on 24.11.2014 at night after refusing by the Opposite Party to provide any more room.
Thus the Opposite Party had actually provided only 8 double bed rooms i.e. 16 beds instead of 30 beds as booked and paid for that for which the Complainant has claimed the refund of the balance amount of Rs. 5,040/- only for not providing the agreed rooms/beds/ accommodation in the Opposite Party Hotel and also the amount of Rs. 2,200/- only what has been paid at Blue Diamond Hotel but the Opposite Party refused to pay the same, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party and caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant for which he had asked for compensation. Hence, this case is filed for seeking adequate redressal before this Forum.
Resisting the Complaint, the Opposite Party filed Written Version for denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the Petition of Complaint and stating inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case, is not maintainable.
The case, as a whole, stated by the Opposite Party, in crisp, is that, on 15.08.2014 the Complainant had booked all non AC rooms of 1st floor and 2nd floor of Opposite Party named Renu Hotel & Restaurant for 2 days starting on and from 24.11.2014 at 06 a.m. for total rent of Rs. 18,000/- only out of which the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only as advanced. But the Complainant never disclosed the number of total guests who would stay in those rooms of the Opposite Party Hotel. In fact there is only one 4 beded room on the 1st and 2nd floor of the Opposite Party Hotel and rest all are the double beded rooms.
But actually on 23.11.2014 at 04 a.m. 5 persons has come instead of 24.11.2014 and the Opposite Party has been provided them in the 2 double beded rooms on the 3rd floor. On 24.11.2014 more 20 persons came to the Opposite Party Hotel who was provided another 6 double beded rooms which showed that the Opposite Party Hotel has actually provided 8 double beded rooms towards the Complainant and due to non availability of one 4 beded room this Opposite Party has provided another extra double beded AC room towards the guests of the Complainant and they enjoyed that AC room from 23.11.2014 to 25.11.2014 for which the Opposite Party did not claim any extra charges for such AC room.
The Opposite Party admitted that due to pre-occupation of players of DSA the Opposite Party could not provide the entire 2nd floor rooms to the guests of the Complainant but instead of that the Opposite Party had actually provided the entire 3rd floor rooms along with one room on 1st floor towards the Complainant. The Complainant only booked 4 double beded rooms and one 4 beded room on the 2nd floor and 2 double beded rooms on the 1st floor. The Opposite Party had to provide total 7 rooms out of which one 4 beded room and rest double beded rooms for the guests of the Complainant as the Complainant never disclosed the total number of his guests but has actually provided total 8 double beded rooms towards the Complainant. At the time of Bill payment the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to consider the rent amount of 2 rooms which were occupied from 23.11.2014 but the Opposite Party turned down the same and asked the Complainant to pay the extra sum of Rs. 2,000/- only for that extra one day.
Thus, no question of deficiency of service in favour of the Complainant does arise at all on part of the Opposite Party and this Opposite Party has denied any negligence and/or deficiency in rendering service on his part towards the Complainant for which the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the instant case against this Opposite Party.
Points for Determination
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service
on the part of the O.Ps ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Complainant in person and also critically perused all the material documents on record as because neither any Ld. Advocate nor any other authorized representative or the Opposite Party himself is present at time of hearing argument.
On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Complainant in person, and on critical appreciation of the case record (Complaint and Written Version and all the documents filed by the Complainant in support of his case), it is clearly evident that admittedly the Complainant had booked rooms in the Opposite Party Renu Hotel & Restaurant on 15.08.2014 for accommodation of guests due to the marriage of Complainant’s daughter for 2 days (24.11.2014 and 25.11.2014) for total consideration amount of Rs. 18,000/- only out which admittedly the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only as advance towards the Opposite Party.
It is revealed from the documents (Approval Slip dated 15.08.2014 issued by the Opposite Party) filed by the Complainant that the Complainant had actually booked the “Full Rooms” for 24.11.2014 and “Room No. 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 101, 102” for 25.11.2014 as written in the said ‘Approval Slip’ dated 25.08.2014. But it is depicts that there is/was no specification in the said ‘Approval Slip’ that wherein and/or on which floor such rooms were to be allotted.
Moreover, from the said ‘Approval Slip’ which was duly issued and signed on behalf of the Opposite Party it is manifestly revealed that full rooms (which means all rooms) of the Opposite Party Hotel for the day 24.11.2014 was booked in favour of the Complainant and the 7 rooms (being Room No. 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 101, 102) was booked for the day 25.11.2014 but the Opposite Party Hotel did not mention and/or written on that ‘Approval Slip’ that on which floor such 7 rooms was actually allotted which was inevitably the negligence and/or deficiency on part of the Opposite Party concerned.
Furthermore, the Opposite Party admitted by filing the Written Version Paragraph No. 7 at Page 3 that the Complainant had booked all Non AC rooms of 1st and 2nd floor of Renu Hotel for 2 days started from 24.11.2014. But astonishingly in the same Paragraph at Page 4 of the said Written Version the Opposite Party further specifically stated and admitted that due to pre-occupation of players of DSA the Opposite Party could not provide the entire 2nd floor rooms to the Complainant which clearly evident and proved that the Opposite Party formerly allotted and booked the entire 2nd floor rooms towards the Complainant but subsequently the Opposite Party intentionally rescind their own booking and re-allotted the same pre-allotted rooms of 2nd floor to the DSA players may be for some illegal and unlawful extra gain which certainly be the deficient and/or negligent manner in providing proper service towards the Complainant.
Now the record depicts that neither the Complainant nor the Opposite Party filed and/or submitted any such documents from which it is shown that the actual allotment of rooms in the Opposite Party Hotel which is necessary for the proper adjudication of the instant case and for which the Forum directed the Opposite Party concerned to produce and/or submit the original ‘Booking Register’ of the Hotel at the time of hearing argument for scrutinizing such ‘Booking Register’ for rightly determined the dispute in issue.
But instead of submitting the said ‘Booking Register’ of the Hotel the Opposite Party has preferred to file a ‘Revision’ petition against that ‘Order’ before the Hon’ble State Commission challenging such ‘Order’ passed by the Forum below and after hearing the both parties the Hon’ble Commission pleased to confirm the said ‘Order’ passed by the Forum below for production of the original ‘Booking Register’ .
But astonishingly it is depicts that after passing the ‘Order’ by the Hon’ble State Commission the Opposite Party concerned remained absent without taking any step which is manifestly evident from the ‘Order Sheet’ of the Forum which connotes that the Opposite Party Hotel concern evaded to produce the said ‘Booking Register’ for some reasons best known to them. Moreover from such mischievous act of the Opposite Party concerned it is obviously assumed that such ‘Booking Register’ must have those evidences what be confirmed that the Opposite Party had done some unscrupulous act by adopting the ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ for earning some extra unlawful gains which is indisputably the deficient and/or negligent act/manner of service provided on part of the Opposite Party Hotel towards the Complainant.
Moreover it is also admitted by the Opposite Party concerned that they also demanded the extra charges of Rs. 2,000/- only for allotted 2 double bed rooms on 23.11.2014 and the same was claimed to have been duly paid by the Complainant.
The record reveals that the Complainant further claimed the sum of Rs. 2,200/- only from the Opposite Party which the guests of the Complainant who did not get any room/accommodation in the said Opposite Party Hotel on 24.11.2014 and had compelled to take alternative accommodations in another Hotel (Blue Diamond Hotel) and had to pay an amount of Rs. 2,200/- only to that Hotel which is supposed to be true on the ground that when the Opposite Party failed to provide any room in favour of those guests they had no other alternative remedies than to take the rooms in any the other Hotel.
It is also revealed from the Written Version (Paragraph No. 7 at Page No. 4 ) filed by the Opposite Party that the Opposite Party Hotel concerned specifically admitted that the Opposite Party Hotel authority has allotted/provided the 8 double beded rooms (16 beds) instead of 4 double beded rooms (8 beds) and one 4 beded room (4 beds) on the 2nd floor and 2 double beded rooms (4 beds) on the 1st floor which manifestly depicts from the admission of the Opposite Party concerned that the Opposite Party Hotel has actually provided 16 beds instead of 20 towards the Complainant after booking the formerly by paying the advanced amount which is a clear deficiency and/or negligence on part of the Opposite Party Hotel concerned. But the Complainant claimed to book the 25 beds and subsequently for 5 persons i.e. for 30 beds and also has duly paid for the same.
Thus the fact remains that the Complainant had booked the rooms in the Opposite Party Hotel and paid the total consideration money of Rs. 20,000/- only to the Opposite Party Opposite Party as claimed and/or charged by the Hotel concerned but the Opposite Party failed to provide the said booked/pre-allotted rooms towards the guests of the Complainant and provided some of the said rooms in favour of others (DSA players) for earning extra unlawful gains.
So, from the above discussion and analysis the Forum is of opinion that the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only in total (which was never denied and/or challenged by the Opposite Party Hotel) for 25 beds which means Rs. 800/- only per bed. But the Opposite Party had allotted/provided only 16 beds towards the guests of the Complainant which clearly depicts that the Opposite Party failed to provide 9 beds which has been charged to Rs. 7,200/- only (Rs. 800/- X 9 beds) and had already been received by the Opposite Party.
But as the Complainant has claimed to get the refund of Rs. 5,040/- only the Forum unanimous decided that the Opposite Party is rigorously liable to refund the sum of Rs. 5,040/- only and also the sum of Rs. 2,200/- only (what amount the guests of the Complainant had to pay to some other Hotel which they had to take as an alternative accommodation when refused to provide the rooms by Opposite Party) along with adequate compensation for humiliation in front of the in-laws family of his daughter and harassment and mental agony on part of the Complainant.
Moreover, it is also proved not only from the Complaint filed by the Complainant but also from the Written Version filed on behalf of the Opposite Party concerned that this Opposite Party Hotel has adopted the ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ under the Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by doing such unscrupulous act (by not providing the booked/pre-allotted rooms after due payment towards the Complainant) for getting unlawful gains and for adopting such kind of malafide act the unified decision of the Forum is that the Opposite Party is also strictly liable to pay the penalty charges.
Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has successfully proved his case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.
In short, the Complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against Opposite Party with cost.
That the Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 5,040/- only to the Complainant (which the Opposite Party had received for all booked/allotted rooms but deliberately failed to provide the same) within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That the Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 2,200/- only to the Complainant (which the guests of the Complainant had to pay to some other Hotel for residing in as alternative accomodation) within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only to the Complainant as the tune of litigation cost within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only to the Complainant, as compensation for mental agony and harassment and humiliation due to malafide act on part of the Opposite Party, within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only as penalty charges for adopting such kind of ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ towards the Consumer Legal Aid Fund within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Party within a period of one month from the date of this order, the Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which amount shall be deposited by the Opposite Party in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Written & Typed by me. Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
