Delhi

East Delhi

CC/261/2022

DEEPIKA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BLACK PEPPER HOSPITALITY AND EVENTS PVT LTD OPERATING AS PEARL GRAND - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 261/2022

 

	Deepika Gupta, R/o. D-74, 2nd Floor, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.	….Complainant
Versus
1.       2.       3.         4.       5.       6.	Black Pepper Hospitality and Events Pvt. Ltd. Operating as Pearl Grand Plot No. 3, LGF, CBD, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.   Pearl Grand Sandal Tree Banquets (Managed by Black Pepper Hospitality and Events Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 7, Site-4, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201001.   Anoop Arora Director of Black Pepper Hospitality and Events Pvt. Ltd. Flat No. 01021, Tower 1, ATS Apartment, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad-201014, U.P.   Sukhvinder Chadha Director of Black Pepper Hospitality and Events Pvt. Ltd. A-295, Surya Nagar, I.E. Shahibabad, Ghaziabad-201010, U.P.   Hency Arora Director of Black Pepper Hospitality and Events Pvt. Ltd. F-174, Laxmi Nagar Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.   Supreet Kaur Director of Black Pepper Hospitality and Events Pvt. Ltd. 15/130, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031.	……OP1       ……OP2         ……OP3       ……OP4       ……OP5       ……OP6

 

Date of Institution: 30.05.2022

Judgment Reserved on: 25.08.2023

Judgment Passed on: 28.08.2023

                       

 

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

1. By this judgment the Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in service in not providing the booked banquet hall for the purpose of marriage of her sister and then even not returning the booked amount.
2. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant in the complaint are that the complainant booked a venue for the marriage of her younger sister for the date 25.04.2020 at Pearl Grand ‘Sandal Tree Banquet’ on 13.01.2020 and on the basis of representation given by the employee of the OP she booked for 300 persons for an amount of Rs. 5,07,500/- including taxes as per menu card as well as venue discussed and transferred the amount of Rs. 5000/- through Google Pay, on 14.01.2020 & another amount of Rs. 54000/- was transferred to OP’s account on 16.01.2020 on the request of Ms. Harminder Kaur, employee of the OP and again Rs. 5000/- was paid on 24.01.2020 and again on the request of  Ms. Harminder Kaur she transferred Rs. 60000/- & on 11.02.2020 and again on 07.03.2020 Rs. 50000/- were paid and all the receipts are attached herewith. In total an amount of Rs. 1,74,000/- was paid to the OPs. However due to Covid-19 restrictions which were imposed w.e.f. 22.03.2020 she called said Ms. Harminder Kaur, employee of the OPs to know about the status of the booking and she was informed that company will either adjust the money for the marriage ceremony whenever held later on or company would refund the money once the lockdown would be lifted by the government. It is further stated that the complainant again contacted the said employee on 30.06.2020 and informed her that marriage has been postponed for 26.11.2020 and requested the OP for booking the venue for 26.11.2020 in place of 25.04.2020 but she was told that the booking would be done only after the office of the OP would open. On 20.09.2020 the said Ms. Harminder Kaur called the complainant and told her to visit the office for confirming the booking, whereafter she reached there and in view of the guidelines of the government that maximum 200 persons are allowed in the function, and she told the OP to take the payment for 200 persons as per the guidelines and adjust the booking amount already paid and make the  booking at the agreed rate of Rs.1450 per person i.e. total of Rs. 2,90,000/-  or they may charge lumsum Rs. 3,00,000/-, but the OP became rude and told the complainant that she had to pay Rs. 5,07,500/- i.e. with full amount which was as per the original booking of 350 persons and she was also informed that she can bring more 200 people claiming that they will take care if any issue arises due to number of guests higher than the stipulated by the government. Since the amount of Rs. 5,07,500/- was very high in considering the capping of 200 persons the complainant requested for refund of money but the OP refused to refund the payment by stating that due to pandemic, they have no money to refund but the amount would be adjusted for any other function either by the complainant or her relative in future. The complainant then reached office of the OP1 at Plot No. 3, LGF, CBD, Shahdara, Delhi but they refused to refund the money and she was again assured that money would be adjusted in her future events. On 25.09.2020 she booked Pearl Grand Galaxy, Diamond Hall, P-3, CBD, Shahdara Delhi for sister’s marriage and requested them to adjust the amount paid by her earlier but the OPs refused the said request stating that they cannot adjust the amount given to them in their other branch. In November 2020 she again visited the said employee Ms. Harminder Kaur in the office of the OP and requested her book the venue for the date 11.12.2020 for his brother’s marriage but she was told that the date is already booked. She again visited on 16.12.2020 and requested that the venue be booked for the 16.02.2021, for the marriage, and again she was told that the said date is already booked & thereafter she requested to refund her money but the same was not refunded. Thereafter she sent legal notice on 19.03.2021 which also was not complied with. She then has filed the complaint with National Consumer Helpline Vide Ref. No. 2850284 however on 02.09.2021 the said grievance was disposed of after trying to contact the OPs but no reply was received to the National Consumer Helpline and she was asked to file the case before the Consumer Commission and thereafter she has filed the present complaint before this Commission with prayer that OP be directed to refund Rs. 1,74,000/-  to her, pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs.11000/- as legal expenses.      
3. Initially the complaint was filed against the 8 OPs including Ms. Shona Oberoi and Ms. Harminder Kaur, employee of the OPs but after hearing as to how OP7 & OP8, the employees of OP1, are service provider once the company has already been made party alongwith directors & therefore OPs 7 & 8 were deleted from array of parties vide order dated 26.07.2022 and other OPs were directed to be served. One Ms. Rimika Chauhan Advocate appeared for OP1, OP3, OP4 on 15.11.2022 & filed memo of appearance on 15.11.2022 but nobody appeared for OP2, OP5 & OP6 despite service. The matter was then adjourned to 22.11.2022. On 22.11.2022 none of the OP was present despite waiting upto 12:30 p.m. and as such all OPs were proceeded ex-parte.
4. It is also matter of record that Ms. Shubham Bharti Advocate also appeared for OP1, OP3, OP4 on 28.03.2023 but no written statement was filed.  The complainant has filed her evidence and also the written arguments and Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.  Despite having served, the OPs did not file any reply despite their Ld. Counsel had appeared earlier therefore this Commission has no opportunity to hear the OPs.
5. The facts are quite specific that complainant booked a banquet hall for the purpose of marriage of her sister for the date 20.04.2020 and admittedly at that time the guidelines w.r.t. holding the function on account of Covid-19 restrictions were in force and marriage has to be postponed, the version of the complainant is that she visited the OP’s office as well as contacted telephonically to the employee of the OP many a times. Initially w.r.t. change of date for the marriage of her sister which was although promised but the proportionate amount for 200 persons was not adjusted and when she claimed the amount to be refunded the same was also not refunded. It is also stated in the complaint that, she contacted head office of the OP1 and booked the function hall at head office CBD Shahdara but the OP even did not care to adjust the amount given to branch office of OP. When the complainant told her to reschedule the dates of the event and this time for the purpose of marriage of her brother for 20.04.2021 she was told that the date is already booked & when she contacted again & requested the OP to book the date 16.02.2021 and she was again told that said date is already booked and therefore accordingly it is argued the OP neither gave the space nor adjusted the complainant with the venue for the purpose of the marriage of her brother despite having assured the complainant by the OP, and this amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore OPs be directed to refund the amount taken then on the promise of providing services to the complainant. Despite having made appearance by the Ld. Counsel for OP1, OP3, OP4 neither the OPs have filed their written statement nor have argued the matter on legal aspects and therefore the fact stated by the complainant in the complaint supported with the affidavit have gone unrebutted.
6. The Commission has also perused the records and it is observed from the complainant that no payment/consideration has been allegedly paid by the complainant to OP2 and he cannot be held as service provider to the complainant and then complainant confirmed that she has not paid any payment to Pearl Grand, & OP2 therefore and is not a service provider rather it is brand name of the OP, and therefore no case is made out against the OP2 and the complaint of complainant against OP2 is dismissed.
7. As far as directors are concerned although the complainant has given the name of 04 directors namely OP3 Anoop Arora,  OP4 Sukhivinder Chadha but the complainant has also filed record from the Master Data Record from Registrar of Companies taken from the official website of Ministry of Company’s and this only shows name of two director i.e. Anoop Arora & Sukhivinder Chadha. Complainant was enquired as to how other OPs i.e. Hency Arora and Sh. Supreet Kaur are the director of the company to which she submitted that she has no other record and director may come and may go. The date from the authorised portal of company only shows OP3 & OP4 as director of OP1. In view of the circumstances the Commission is of the opinion that complainant has been able to prove it case only against OP1 & two directors i.e. OP3 & OP4.
8. Therefore the Commission hereby finds deficiency in service on the part of OP1, OP3, OP4 and complainant is not able to show any merit w.r.t. relief claimed against OP2, OP5 & OP6. The claim of the complainant therefore against OP2, OP5 & OP6 is not maintainable and only OP1, OP3 & OP4 are held liable for deficiency in service. The Commission hereby orders;-

•  OP1, OP3, OP4 to return the amount of Rs.1,74,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present case till actual realisation.
• OP to pay compensation of Rs.25000/- alongwith legal expenses of Rs.11000/- to the complainant.

This Order is to be complied within 30 days from the receiving the same & in case the OPs would not pay the amount within 30 days the rate of interest would be @12% from the date of filing the case upto the date of actual payment on the entire amount including of compensation/legal expenses amount.           

                  Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 28.08.2023.