BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

Pritpal Gupta s/o Jagdish Chand, H.No.1142, Sector-12A, Panchkula, Haryana- 134112.

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Aurangabad Gymkhana Club Pvt. Ltd.(A G C), Plot No.P-60,       Chikalthana MIDC, Airport Road, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar        (Aurangabad) 431210, Maharashtra, India through its Managing    Director Surendra Sampatraj Surana.

2.     Surendra Sampatraj Surana, Managing Director, C/o Aurangabad       Gymkhana Club Pvt. Ltd. (A G C), Plot No.P-60, Chitalthana MIDC,     Airport Road, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, (Aurangabad) 431210,   Maharashtra, India.    

                                                                                     ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

                        Dr.Suman Singh, Member

For the Parties:   Complainant in person alongwith Sh. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate.  

                        OPs No.1 & 2 ex-parte vide order dated 29.09.2023.               

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are, that the complainant had planned to visit various religious places in central and south India in the month of December, 2022 and in this regard, he  contacted the opposite party No.1(hereinafter after referred to as OP No.1) i.e. Aurangabad Gymkhana Club Pvt.Ltd. explained the purpose of his stay and his requirement for stay of three adults and two adolescents for at-least three days and he was advised by the OP to get two family rooms and to deposit 50% advance payment of Rs.24,000/- for three days and the remaining amount i.e. Rs.24,000/- was to be paid at the time of check out. It is averred that the complainant made online payment of Rs.24,000/- as advance for booking of rooms for five persons of complainant’s family comprising of three adults and two adolescents. It is stated that on reaching the Aurangabad City on 27.12.2022, the complainant was informed that only one room i.e. room no.401 was available and that extra child bed would be provided at a very nominal price. It is stated that during the stay of the complainant at the OP No.1 hotel from 27.12.2022 to 30.12.2022, he and his family members had their dinner at the OP’s hotel and the dinning bills, with all the bifurcation of tax qua the room number 401, which was occupied by the complainant and his members, were issued. On 30.12.2022, at the time of check out, the complainant was asked to make payment of another amount of Rs.24,000/- as balance. The complainant told them that he had occupied only one room but he reluctantly made the payment of another Rs.24,000/-. It is stated that the complainant was given a simple receipt of payment of RS.48,000/- with no bifurcation of tax etc. wherein two bill numbers i.e. bill no.2223/6297 and bill no.2223/6293 were mentioned on it but the same were never provided to complainant. It is stated that as per the tariff card, OP’s had no room with such high tariff, which was charged from the complainant. It is stated that the complainant stayed in OP’s Hotel with his family in only one room i.e. room no.401 and was forced to pay double the amount for that room. It is stated that this illegal practice of charging amount more than the tariff rate, not including the tax component in the final receipts, not providing the proper bills to the customers, amounts to illegal trade practices and indulging in unfair trade practice.  Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OPs No.1 & 2 through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.1 & 2; hence, they were deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OPs No.1 & 2, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 29.09.2023.

3.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.  

4.             We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant, during arguments, has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) and contended that one room number i.e. room no.401 was provided by the OP’s to the complainant and his family members during their stay in OP’s hotel w.e.f. 27.12.2022 to 30.12.2022, whereas the OP’s had charged from the complainant for two rooms qua their stay and thus, it was argued that an amount of Rs.24,000/- was charged in excess from the complainant by the OPs.

6.               The OPs have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite services of notice and accordingly, they wre proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.09.2023 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant against them go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the entire record available on the file as also the written arguments, we find force and substance in the version of the complainant that a sum of Rs.24,000/- was charged in excess by the Ops from him. First, as per bill(Annexure C-3), which was allegedly  issued by the Ops at the time of check out by the complainant, a family  suite @ 16000 was provided to the complainant and his family members comprising of 5 persons, for three days w.e.f. 27.12.2022 to 30.12.2022 and a sum of Rs.48,000/- in total was received from the complainant but  as per room tariff/charges, which is placed on record Annexure C-4, we find no provision for “family suite” and further, we find  no such room/suite under any category having  the said charges of Rs.16,000/-. Since there was no provision for “family suite” or any other suite having the tariff @ 16000, the charging of tariff on the basis of providing of a “family suite” @16000 by the Ops from the complainant was not proper, valid and justified.

                Secondly, two bill numbers i.e. bill no.2223/6297 and bill no.2223/6298 have been mentioned on the top of said bill(Annexure C-3). As per unrebutted contentions of the complainant, the sail bill numbers i.e. bill no. 2223/6297 & 2223/6298 were not provided to him by the OPs. We have no clue as to the said bill nos. 2223/6297 & 2223/6298 as there is no version of the OPs is available on the file.

                Thirdly, the complainant has placed on record two dining bills as Annexure C-2 pertaining to 28.12.2022 and 29.12.2022 and on the perusal of the same, we find only one room number i.e. room no.401 is mentioned therein.

                Lastly, the Ops have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent during the proceedings of the present complaint despite the receipt of the notice issued from the Commission and thus, the version of the complainant against them is unrebutted and uncontroverted.

8.             In view of the fact that the OPs have neither responded to the notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof.

9.             From the above discussion, it is clear that the Ops had been deficient, while rendering services to the complainant, for which, they are liable to compensate, jointly and severally, to the complainant  

10.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.24,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum (simple interest) w.e.f. the date of filing of the present complaint  till its actual realization.
2. To pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

11.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs No.1 & 2 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. 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 on: 17.09.2024

        Dr.Suman Singh            Dr.Sushma Garg                 Satpal

                Member                     Member                     President

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

                                                   Satpal

                                             President