Haryana

Panchkula

CC/211/2020

N.K SINGLA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CASA-VILLAZ RESORTS. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	211 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2020
Date of Decision	:	15.11.2022

 

 

N.K.Singla, aged 57 years, son of Late Shri Mela Ram, resident of House No.393, Amarwati Enclave, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

 

    ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     Casa-Villaz Resorts, Ramgarh-Mubarikpur-Dera Bassi Road, Zirakpur,(Punjab)-140603 through its Venue Manager Sachin Bagga.

2.     Oyo, H.O. 9th Floor, Spaze Plazo, Sector-69, Southern Peripheral Road, Gurugrum-122018 through its authorized signatory.

3.     Weddingz.in, 329, Tower-A, Bestech Business Tower, Sector-66, Mohali(Punjab)- 160066 through its authorized signatory.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.  

                        None for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Punit Tuli, Advocate for OPs No.2 & 3.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the marriage of the son of the complainant was scheduled to be held on 04.02.2020 and accordingly, the complainant in order to solemnize the marriage of his son in a lavish manner contacted the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 directed the complainant to deposit Rs.40,000/- as initial deposit and after confirmation email from the OP No.1 the remaining  amount of Rs.90,245/- was deposited. On the same day, the complainant received the confirmation email from the OP No.1 with details of the client and checklist. The OP No.1 supplied the proposed menu for lunch and dinner for Casavillaz Banquet Hall and the remaining amount of Rs.90,245/-was deposited with the OP No.1 on 07.10.2019 through NEFT. Thereafter, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant decided to cancel the said booking and accordingly, the complainant intimated about the same to the OPs vide email dated 18.12.2019 and requested to refund the amount deposited  by him. He again sent reminder in this regard to the OPs on 21.12.2019 & 29.12.2019 but of no use. Further, the Ops directed the complainant to furnish the documents with regard to death of his mother and adhar card of the complainant for processing the refund. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the requisite documents with the OP No.1. After receiving the documents, the OPs confirmed the receipt of documents and sought one week time in processing his case vide its email dated 03.01.2020. Thereafter, the complainant received an email from the OP No.1 on 09.01.2020 whereby it forwarded the complaint made by the Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta who claimed the amount of booking. After the receipt of the said mail, the complainant sent a mail dated 10.01.2020 in response to the said mail dated 09.01.2020 and explained all the facts and denied all the false allegations leveled by the grandfather of the bride and requested the OPs to obtain  an affidavit in this regard attested from First Class Magistrate. The said mail dated 10.01.2020 was forwarded by the OP No.1 to Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta and complainant with the request  to settle the matter with each other but till date no reply has been received from Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta. The complainant sent email dated 12.01.2020 with regard to arrange a meeting but no fruitful result was out. After email conversation on many dates with Ops No.1 to 3, the complainant received mail from Amol Bali on 05.02.2020 wherein they persisted the complainant to bring mutual consent letter. The complainant replied the said mail on 09.02.2020 again explaining each and everything but in vain. Due to the act and conduct of OPs No.1 to 3, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss, mental agony and harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through authorized representative and filed written statement and stated that our company has leased the said resort on monthly basis from June 2019 to OYO(op No.2) and Wedding.in(OP No.3). The complainant has made the payment to OP No.2 & OP No.3 and his manager has finalized the deal. It is stated that it has no concerned from the present case and all the responsibility are lying upon the OPs No.2 & 3. The OP No.1 has stated that he has lodged an FIR regarding fraud in September 2020. So, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint

                Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua its maintainability being frivolous and suppressed the true material facts. The complaint does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer dispute’ under the CP, Act. It is stated that OP No.2 is one of the platform in the hospitality industries which operate its platform on the name and style of “OYO Rooms”. It is submitted that the role of the OP No.2 is only limited to the extent to the arranging of the booking through its platform and the rest of the operational liability if any is of the owner of the said Hotel/Guest House. It is submitted that the complainant made bookings with OPs and deposited the amount pertaining to the booking, thereafter, the complainant requested the OPs No.1 & 3 to cancel the said bookings due to some personal reasons and the OP No.2 acceded the request of the complainant and cancelled the booking on his own accord and were ready to refund. It is pertinent to mention here that after the cancellation of the said booking, OP No.2 approached the complainant for the refund and asked him to provide his bank details so that the amount could be refunded. However, the bride side contacted the OPs and asked them to refund the entire amount to them. It is further submitted that in the present complaint, it was acknowledged that there is a dispute as to who made the payments for the booking of the said hotel. Therefore, the OP No.2 requested both the parties, i.e. bride’s side and the groom’s side to kindly sort out their personal dispute regarding the payment and informed the OP No.2 about their mutual decision, so that the OP No.2 could take the final decision. Further, in order to avoid any complications, the OP No.2 communicated to the complainant to get an NOC/Affidavit from the bride’s side so that the refund amount could be initiated. However, no step was taken by the complainant to resolve the issue. In light of the foregoing reasons, the refund of the said booking could not be initiated in favour of the complainant. It is also mentioned here that the complainant himself, in the mail dated 10.01.2020, it is admitted by the complainant himself that the amount of INR 90,245 was transferred from Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta’s account on 07.10.2019. Therefore, it can be said that even according to him, the amount was transferred not by him, but by Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta. Moreover, it has come to our knowledge that the payment as traced have been made by Sh. Gopal Krishan Gupta through NEFT bearing no.CR-SBIN0001762. It is also submitted that Sh.Sachin Bagga in his email to Sh. Gopal Krishan Gupta dated 09.01.2020 that payment was received from Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta, through NEFT vide cheque no.534062. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua its maintainability being frivolous and suppressed the true material facts. It is stated that OP No.3 is one of the platform in the hospitality industries which operate its platform on the name and style of “OYO Rooms”. It is submitted that the role of the OP No.3 is only limited to the extent to the arranging of the booking through its platform and the rest of the operational liability if any is of the owner of the said Hotel/Guest House. The pleas and assertions made in the written statement filed by the OP No.2, have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-22 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the evidence of the Ops No.1 to 3 have been closed by order of this Commission dated 22.08.2022.

4.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 and gone through the entire record available on file including the written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the complainant had booked the Casa-Villaz Resorts, Ramgarh-Mubarikpur-Dera Bassi Road, Zirakpur,(Punjab) i.e. OP No.1 vide (Annexure C-1 & C-2(colly) on 06.10.2019  in connection with the solemnizing of the marriage of his son on 04.02.2020. Undisputedly, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was received in cash by Sh. Sachin Bagga, Manager, on behalf  of the OPs No.2 & 3  on 06.10.2019 in lieu of said booking, in addition to the receipt of another sum of Rs.90,250/- on 07.10.2019 through NEFT from account no. 20062919727 belonging to Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta, Malerkotla, Advocate, who is the grandfather of the bride. It is also not in dispute that the marriage event was cancelled by the complainant vide his email dated 18.02.2019(Annexure C-3) sent to OPs No.2 and 3 seeking the refund of amount of Rs.1,30,245/- from them followed by several emails i.e.dated 21.12.2019(Annexure C-4) & email dated 21.12.2019 (Annexure C-5 & C-6), wherein  request for the refund of said booking amount was repeatedly made.

                During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that the OPs No.2 & 3 had been deficient, while not refunding the amount of Rs.1,30,245/- as requested by him vide several emails. It is contended that the complainant alone has the right to get the refund of the said amount of Rs.1,30,245/- as the booking was made in his name. It is also contended that if the marriage function had  matured on 04.02.2020 in the said resort,  then in that event, the complainant would have to make the balance payment, out of the total settled amount of Rs.5,21,000/-. Concluding the arguments, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by grating the relief as prayed for in the complaint.

6.             The OP No.1 has filed its reply stating that the resort has already been leased out to OPs No.2 & 3, thus, for any deficiency, the OPs No.2 & 3 alone are responsible.

7.             The OPs No.2 & 3 have resisted the complaint by filing separate written statement, wherein almost similar grounds have been taken, while opposing the prayer of the complainant.

                The main plea taken in written statement is that there is inter-se dispute between the bride and groom side, in which the Ops No.2 & 3 have no role to play. It is alleged that Ops No.2 & 3 are ready to refund the amount of Rs.1,30,245/- to the rightful claimant. The learned counsel for the OPs, during arguments reiterating  the averments  made in the  written statement, vehemently contended that Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta vide his email dated 09.01.2020 (Annexure C-11) & email dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure C-13) sent to OPs had raised serious objections to  release of the said amount of Rs.1,30,245/- to the complainant. The learned counsel inviting our attention towards said emails dated 09.01.2020(Annexure C-11) & dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure C-13), which were sent by said Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta, Advocate, has contended that Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta, Advocate, as per said emails had claimed that he had made the payment of Rs.40,000/- to Sh. Sachin Bagga and made the payment of Rs.90,250/- through his account no. 20062919727 through NEFT on 07.10.2019 qua the booking of the said resort; thus, it is contended that the complainant was requested to seek the consent of said Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta and bring NOC from him. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel contended that there have been no lapses and deficiencies on the part of OPs No.2 & 3 as they were always ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs.1,30,245/- to the complainant subject to the submission of NOC/or consent letter from said Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta.

8.             As per rival contentions raised by the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs, it is an admitted factual position that the said resort was booked on 06.10.2019  for 04.02.2020 in the name of Sh. N.K.Singla i.e. complainant vide Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-2(colly) & the total amount payable was Rs.521000/-, out of which Rs.40,000/- were received in cash by Sh. Sachin Bagga, Manager on behalf of the Ops No.2 & 3 on 06.10.2019  vide Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-2(colly) and a sum of Rs.90,250/-was received through NEFT on 07.10.2019 from the account of Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta, Advocate, Malerkotla from his said account no.20062919727. Pertinently, as per email dated 09.01.2020(Annexure C-11 & Annexure C-13) sent by Sh. Sachin Bagga to said Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta as well as the complainant, the said amount of Rs.40,000/- was given to him by the complainant. Further, the OP No.2 has admitted in para no.3 of its reply on merits that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was received from the side of the groom i.e. complainant and there is dispute about the sum of Rs.90,000/- which the bride side has claimed to have made the payment. The relevant part of para no.3 of reply on merits filed by OP No.2, is reproduced as under:

                “It is submitted that as per the Opposite Party no.2 an amount of INR   40,000/- was received from the side of the groom i.e. the complainant and       there is a dispute  about a sum of   approx.INR 90,000/- which the bride’s side       claims they have paid while the complainant  states  that is was paid by him”.

9.             Since the amount of Rs.40,000/- as per aforementioned email as well as the said averments made in its written statement by OP No.2, was received in cash by Sh. Sachin Bagga, Manager on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3 from the complainant, there was no hitch or hindrance  qua the refund of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant. As such, the OPs No.2 & 3 were deficient, while not refunding the said amount to the complainant as requested by him.

10.            Now, coming to the refund of Rs.90,250/-, which was received by OPs No.2 & 3 through NEFT from the account of Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta, it may be mentioned here that booking was made in the name of Sh.N.K.Singla alone and in case, the marriage function had matured on 04.02.2020 as per Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-2(colly), then the complainant alone would have been responsible for making the payment of balance payment out of total settled amount of Rs. 5,21,000/-. Even otherwise, said Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta has not been reported to have lodged any claim qua the refund of Rs.40,000 + Rs. 90,250=Rs.1,30,250/-except two emails dated 09.01.2020 (Annexure C-11) and email dated 10.01.2020(Annexure C-13). The present complaint was instituted on 22.07.2020 by the complainant against the OPs and the said emails were received by them on 09.01.2020 and 10.01.2020 (Annexure C-11 & Annexure C-13) from said Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta, Advocate. In such facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant, in whose name the  booking was made on 06.10.2019(Annexure C-1) & Annexure C-2(colly), is the rightful claimant; so, he is entitled to the refund of the total amount i.e. Rs.1,30,250/-. In view of such facts and circumstances, it can safely be concluded with reasonable degree of certainty that the OPs No.2 & 3 were not justified while asking the complainant to bring the NOC or consent  letter  from said Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta;  therefore, the OPs No.2 & 3 were deficient while rendering services to the complainant; hence he is entitled to relief.

                The complaint is dismissed qua OP No.1 as no deficiency has been alleged against it.

11.            Now, adverting to relief, it is found that the complainant has claimed the refund of Rs.1,30,245/- along with interest @18% w.e.f. the date of receipt till actual realization. However, as discussed above, a sum of Rs. 1,30,250/- was paid to OPs No.2 & 3. Further, the complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- & a sum of Rs.51,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony etc. and litigation charges respectively.

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

1. The OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,30,250/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization.
2. The Ops No.2 & 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. The OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,500/-as cost of litigation charges.

13.            Before parting with this order, we deem it proper to clarify that there shall be no liability of any kind in any manner of the Ops No.2 & 3 in any interse dispute, if any, arises between the complainant and Sh. Gopal Krishan Gupta in future after the payment of sum of Rs. 1,30,250/-along with interest @ 9%p.a.(SI) as directed above  by the Ops No.2 & 3 to the complainant. In case any interse dispute between the complainant and Sh.Gopal Krishan Gupta arises in future, then in that eventuality, the complainant alone shall be responsible for settling such dispute.

14.            The OPs No.2 & 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order 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.2 & 3. 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:15.11.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal         

           Member                          Member                     President

 

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

 

                                          Satpal,                             

                                        President