Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/171/2022

PRIYANKA & ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMR HOTEL & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 171/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	1.     2.	Smt.Priyanka W/o Babloo Siddiqui   Sh. BablooSiddiqui S/o Saleem Siddiqui   Both at:- RZ 514/21 Tughlakabad Extensions, Kalka Ji, New Delhi		Complainants
		Versus
	1.                           2.         3.	AMR Hotel Through Mr. Baldev Raj Sharma S/o Lt. Amar Nath Sharma Partner, 817, Pearl Omaxe Tower, NetajiSubhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi 110034   Jammu Road, Near Main Bazaar Vaishno Devi, Katra, Jammu and Kashmir 182301     Mr. Baldev Raj Sharma Partner, AMR Hotel Kalka Nagar, Latori Road, Katra, Jammu-182301   Make Mytrip India Pvt. Ltd. Head Office:- DLF Building No.5, Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana 122002   Also at:- DLF Building No.5, Tower B, P 5, P 4, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 24, Gurugram, Haryana 122002		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		12.07.18 18.01.24 18.03.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainantshave filed the present complaint under Section 12of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainants as revealed from the record is that Complainants and their family booked their stay at Hotel, Katra Jammu through Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.3 confirmed booking at AMR Hotel from April 26, 2018 to April 29, 2018 vide PNR no. 0031522934 and booking ID NH7003177402456 and sent confirmation to Complainants. Thereafter Complainants visited AMR Hotel at Pitampura in order to know the facilities. Considering the persuasion of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 Complainants initially were not willing to stay at AMR Hotel Jammu decided to stay at the said hotel during their trip. Hotel authorities of AMR had given room nos. 204 and 205 from 26.04.18 to 29.04.18. On intervening night of 28 and 29 April 2018 valuables items worth   Rs. 2,65,021/- got stolen from room no. 205 then Complainant immediately brought this fact to the notice of AMR Hotel authorities but they does not provide any assistance to Complainants. To support this contention, Complainant was relying on order passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others  in first Appeal No. 440 of 2017. The Complainant had also lodged an FIR bearing no. 82 of 2018 dated 29.04.18 at nearby Police Station Katra, Jammu. The Complainants had also requested IO in writing and orally to convey two three dates and time in taking requisite documents and to complete all necessary formalities. The Complainants stated that the police have not been able to recover any of the valuable items. Complainants had also contacted the representative of AMR they were rude and denied the factum staying at AMR Hotel from 26 to 29 April, 2018. The Complainant had also sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 19.06.18 through registered post AD, email and courier but all in vain. The Complainant had made numerous complaints to Opposite Party regarding the theft of valuable items from his room but no action was taken by Opposite Party. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainants have prayed for Rs. 2,65,021/- with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of theft till the realization of the amount and Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental harassment along interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till payment.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2

2. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated that the complaint to the extent is related to stay of Complainants in room nos. 204 & 205 of the Hotel is concerned are not denied and Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are not admitted the theft of the valuable things for want of knowledge and the matter is under investigation by the Police.
3. It is further submitted that in the FIR Complainant No.1 indicated a Nokia mobile phone as stolen but subsequently the same was found to be not stolen. Similarly the Complainants subsequently informed the Police about theft of three more articles like wrist watch made “Tissot” and one wallet brand “Van Heusen”. In this regard, it is most respectfully submitted that when all other mobiles were allegedly stolen, then it is unlikely that the Complainant had not noticed between 29.04.18 and 12.06.18 that one of the mobile was not stolen. Similarly, it is unnatural that a wrist watch or a wallet (first thing what a person will notice as missing after getting ready to leave any hotel as these things are not to be kept in any bag) were not noticed by the Complainants till they filed the FIR and left the Hotel. These unnatural conducts on the part of Complainants makes their case completely unreliable.
4. It is further submitted that immediately after the allegation of theft was made by the Complainants, the staff of the hotel informed the Opposite Party No.2 about such incident and Opposite Party No.2 reached the hotel immediately and in the presence of Complainants all the CCTV recordings were checked but nothing unnatural were found and as such Opposite Party No.2 showed his helplessness but the Complainants started shouting at the Opposite Party No.2 as well as other staffs of the hotel and started making various kinds of allegations and used filthy languages without showing any respect to an elderly person like Opposite Party No.2. Subsequently, Complainants lodged an FIR and the same is under investigation by the Katra Police.   
5. It is however specifically denied that the judgment of NCDRC in the case of Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others in first Appeal No. 440 of 2017 as referred is at all applicable to the present case.
6. Subject to the final result of investigation by the Police, it is most respectfully submitted that no material whatsoever was found by Opposite Party No.2, after he reached the hotel on 29.04.18 on hearing the allegations made by the Complainants, which may even slightly indicate about any theft taking place in the hotel or the rooms occupied by the Complainants. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 cannot produce the CCTV recordings as the same are seized by the Police.  
7. It is specifically denied that the Complainants found the Nokia basic phone with them at Delhi. Opposite Party No.1 & 2 has all the reason to believe that when the Police put the alleged missing phones on tracking then the Police found the same with the Complainants and when Complainants realized that the Complainants can be prosecuted for filing false criminal Complainant then in order to cover up they wrote letter to the Police. This fact is supported by the fact that they wrote letter to the Police only on 12/15 June, 2018 and not immediately after their return from Katra. Moreover, the perusal of the mail/letter dated 12/15.06.2018 will satisfy this Hon’ble Court that Complainant alleged only two more missing articles i.e. wrist watch and wallet, but had to mentioned about shoe but now in the complaint before this Hon’ble Forum Complainants added one more articles i.e. one pair of sports shoe make “Nike”, this change of claims from the stage of filing of FIR, letter to Police and complaint clearly indicate that the claim of the Complainants are not true.
8. It is further specifically denied that CCTV cameras at crucial points of hotels were not installed. It is further specifically denied that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 or their staffs were in any manner negligent or that they are not complying with guidelines issued by competent authorities from time to time to be followed by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2. Finally it is specifically denied that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 were in any manner negligent and the judgment of NCDRC referred by the Complainants is not applicable to the present case.
9. It is further submitted that the Complainants without waiting for result of investigation by Police started posting false comments/review on facebook and other websites as well as newspapers and when, despite request made to not to defame the reputation of Opposite Party No.1 & 2, they had not stopped their illegal activities then under such compelled circumstances the Opposite Party No.2 made a criminal Complainant before the Ld. JMIC, Katra under section 499 & 500 of Ranbir Penal Code against the Complainants and other persons.
10. In view of above Opposite Party No.1 & 2 submitted that complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

11. The Opposite Party No.3 contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted that the present complaint filed by the Complainants is not maintainable either on merits or as per law and it liable to be out rightly dismissed qua Opposite Party No.3. That the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant on mere conjectures and surmises. It is submitted that the contents of the complaint are wholly misconceived, vexatious, misleading misrepresented, unsustainable, false, frivolous and are nothing but a flagrant abuse of the process of law. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 and therefore no case is made out against the Opposite Party No.3 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The present complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs thereto under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for dragging a reputed and highly acclaimed tour and travel company in an unnecessary, unwanted and speculative litigation.
12. Without prejudice to the rights and contention of Opposite Party No.3, it is submitted that the allegations of the Complainant are allegedly under sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 and under section 457/380 CRPC as alleged, and as such this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. For the said alleged offence of theft of valuable articles, the Complainant has already lodged a Police Complaint as alleged. Hence, the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts, which requires evidence and detailed trial and investigation, which shall be adjudicated after the IO prepares the charge sheet and submits the same before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence, the Complainant should approach the appropriate court for his remedy as this Hon’ble Forum is not empowered with the conducting trials and deal with the matter involving complicated questions of facts and law.
13. It is to be taken into essential consideration by this Ld. Forum that the Opposite Party No.3 just acted as a facilitator for booking a room in AMR Hotel i.e. Opposite Party No.1 for the Complainant. The Complainant inquired about the available options for making the said booking online. In that capacity, the Opposite Party No.3 duly exercised its duty by making the desired booking for Complainant in AMR Hotel. Subsequently, if at all any default as alleged is made on the part of AMR Hotel by not providing the adequate safety measures due to which the Complainant had to face loss of valuable articles as alleged, the Opposite Party NO.3 cannot be held liable as Opposite Party No.3 had discharged its limited duty by providing the confirmed booking for the Complainant in the hotel as desired by the Complainant themselves.
14. That the Complainant visited the web portal of Opposite Party No.3 i.e. www.makemytrip.com and booked and hotel accommodation in AMR Hotel, Katra Jammu i.e. Opposite Party No.1. the details of the aforesaid booking is below:

Booking ID:NH7003177402456

Date of Booking:April 2018

Mode of Booking:Online

•  

Total Booking Cost:Rs. 13,085/-

No. of persons:Four

Check in date:April 26, 2018

Check out date: April 29, 2018

15. That the confirmation was also shared with the Complainant regarding the booking made in question. That Opposite Party No.3 being a booking agent had made the confirmed booking for Complainant as desired by them well in advance therefore Opposite Party No.3 being a facilitator discharged its limited duty thereof. Thereafter, as per the averments of complaint, the Complainant duly checked in the hotel and availed the confirmed booking issued by the Opposite Party No.3 as per the desire of the Complainant, however during the stay, the Complainant’s valuable articles got stolen by the hotel staff, as alleged. It is clearly averred in the complaint that the Opposite Party No.3 had the role of only providing the booking with Opposite Party No.1, thus now if the Complainant faced any difficulty during the stay due to the acts of the hotel/hotel staff, then Opposite Party No.3 cannot be held responsible as the same is outside the domain of the Opposite Party No.3. It is thus submitted that the Complainant if feeling aggrieved should address is issues only to Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the hotel in question and not Opposite Party No.3.

 Rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Party No.1,2 and 3

16. The Complainants filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Party No. 1,2 and Opposite Party No. 3 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

17. The Complainant No.1 in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

18. In order to prove their case, Opposite Party No.1 & 2 filed affidavit of Sh. Baldev Sharma, Partner of AMR Hotel, and Opposite Party No.3 filed affidavit of Sh. Ekank Mehra, Authorized Officer of MakeMy Trip Pvt. Ltd. wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

19. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
20. The case of the Complainants is that they have booked Opposite Party No. 2’s hotel through Opposite Party No.3 during their stay at the hotel of Opposite Party No.2, there was theft in their room, for this they have lodged an FIR with the concerned Police Station. Hence, there is deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.  
21. The case of the Opposite Parties is that since the case is related to theft which is being investigated by the concerned Police Station. Hence, this case does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
22. As per Para 12 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of  Civil appeal No. 7289 of 2009 titled as The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & ANR Vs. R. Chandramohan dated 27.03.2023 it is held that:-

“12.The Proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act. The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortuous acts.”

 

23.  In view of the above discussion and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the complaint is dismissed.
24. Order announced on 18.03.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President