Haryana

Panchkula

CC/200/2017

DEV PRATAB DABRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE COVE HOTEL - Opp.Party(s)

ANSHUL JINDAL

29 Oct 2018

ORDER

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressal, Forum, Panchkula.

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	200 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	11.9.2017
Date of Decision	:	29.10.2018

 

Dev Partap Dabra S/o Sh. Sanjay Dabra R/o House No.1252, Universal Enclave, Sector 48, Chandigarh.                                        Complainant

Versus

1. The Cove Hotel through its Manager, SCO 1 & 2, Sector 5, Panchkula.
2. Deal Snapper, through its Manager, House No.246, Sector-16-A, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Before :             Mr. Satpal, President.

                        Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Member.

                        Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

                       

For the Parties:   Mr. Anshul Jindal, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 9.4.2018.

 

Order

(SATPAL, president)

1. The grievance of the complainant is that on 14.9.2016, for having lunch he visited the “The Masala Grill” (restaurant of the OP No.1) and before placing his order he presented discount coupon to the OP No.1, which was issued by the OP No.2 and OP No.1 accepted the same. According to the contents of the coupon, the cost of the lunch buffet was to be Rs.499/- per head; but after having lunch, the complainant found that the amount in the bill exceeded the cost of the lunch buffet shown in the coupon i.e. from Rs. 499/- to Rs. 545/-. After asking for extra charges, the OP No.1 did not give any response. The complainant in order to avoid any further embarrassment in presence of his relative paid the presented bill amount (that was with the extra charges). On 23.9.2016 legal notice was also issued to the OP No.1 in this regard, but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed; this act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2. Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared to contest the complaint by filing his written statement while taking some preliminary objections such as that the complainant has not approached before this Forum with clean hands; there is no relationship of consumer and service provider and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. On merits, while denying the version of the complainant it has been alleged that the complainant visited the restaurant of OP No.1 and had ordered the food of his choice from Ala-Carte menu; it was politely told to the complainant that the menu under the coupon was buffet and no beverages were included therein; so the same could not be availed against the lunch taken; many attempts were made to make the complainant understand the implications but he was adamant; though the payable amount was approximately Rs. 1,450/- plus taxes but the matter was sorted out by way of a via-media; the coupon amount of Rs. 1,090/- was adjusted against the payment of Rs. 1,450/- plus applicable taxes and the balance thereof was charged from him. It is wrong that there was any overcharging; thus, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1; hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cos

3.     Notices were issued to the OP No.2 through registered post dated 27.9.2017 and 7.3.2018 and the same were not received back served or unserved. After elapsing of 30 days from the sending of notice to OP No.2 through registered post it is presumed that OP No.2 has been legally served through registered post; however, none appeared on behalf of the OP No. 2; hence, the OP No.2 was proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 9.4.2018.

4.     To prove his case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Annexure R1/A in evidence and closed the evidence.   

5.     We have heard the ld. counsels for both the parties and gone through the record carefully and minutely. It is an admitted fact that the complainant visited restaurant “The Masala Grill” which is restaurant of OP No.1 for lunch on 14.9.2016. The complainant was having discount coupon issued by the Deal Snapper (OP No.2) for six buffets on a single voucher to be availed at said restaurant of OP No.1. The offer was valid till 31.3.2017 excluding the days from 25^th to 31^st December and 14^th February on special days/events. So, it is clear that the complainant visited the restaurant on 14^th September 2016, for which the coupon was valid and even otherwise this fact has not been disputed by OP No.1. A further perusal of the discount coupon Annexure C-1 has made it clear that the complainant was entitled to the facility of unlimited fresh lime soda/fresh lime water/soft drinks along with the offer of lunch buffet/dinner buffet.

The OP No.1 has denied the version of the complainant stating that the complainant had the food of his choice ordering from Ala Carte Menu and he did not produce the alleged discount coupon prior to taking the lunch. It is the further version of the OP No.1 that the facility of beverages/cold drinks etc. was not to be provided as per the discount coupon Annexure C-1. Having gone through the entire record available on the file, we do not find any force and substance in the version of the OP No.1 as the OP No.1 has not produced any copy of Ala Carte Menu showing the rates against each item. Further, we also even do not find the alleged bill of Rs.1450/-. The OP No.1 has not disclosed as to what eatable items and beverages etc. were taken by the complainant while having the lunch in the restaurant. It is not the case of the OP No.1 that the discount coupon Annexure C-1 was bogus or not valid for having lunch/dinner buffet. Moreover, we find that the bill amounting to Rs. 1090/- issued by OP No.1 (Annexure C-2) bears the name of “Deal Snapper” clarifying a mutual business tie up between OP No.1 and OP No.2. It is a matter of common knowledge that now a days the service providers many a times indulge into the practice of issuing the discount coupon to the consumers to promote their business activities. In the present case, the OP No.2 i.e. Deal Snapper because of its tie up with OP No.1 has issued the discount coupon and in the back drop of these facts, we find no justification on the part of OP No.1 to back out of the commitment made vide discount coupon Annexure C-1. Admittedly, the OP No.1 has charged Rs. 545/- per head against the promised amount of Rs.499/-.  Therefore, we have no doubt of any kind in any manner with regard to the fact that there has been lapse and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 while delivering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.    

6.     As a sequel of above discussion, we dispose of the present complaint with the following directions to the OP No.1.   

1. To refund Rs.92 with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 14.9.2016 to the complainant till its realization.
2. To pay lump sum amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and cost of litigation.

7.     The OP No.1 shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OP No.1. It is clarified that there has been no lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.2.

8.     A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

29.10.2018   RUBY SHARMA        JAGMOHAN SINGH           SATPAL

                   MEMBER                   MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         SATPAL

                                         PRESIDENT