Haryana

Panchkula

CC/435/2021

SURENDER SINGH PARMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CLARION INN SEVILLA HOTEL. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

13 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	435 of2021
Date of Institution	:	21.10.2021
Date of Decision	:	13.06.2022

 

 

Surender Singh Parmar, House No.179, Village Manakpur, Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                ….Complainant.

 

Versus

Clarion Inn Sevilla Hotel, Shimla-Kalka Highway, Zirkapur, Haryana.

….Opposite Party

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.

                        OP already ex parte vide order dated 06.12.2021.

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.                The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has visited the OP on 25.02.2021 for organizing a marriage event for Bhavana and Siddharth. After checking the Banquet Hall and finalizing the menu as well as other charges the deal was done on 27.02.2021 for 300 persons by Sh. Rajan(event Manager). The amount of Rs.50000- was paid on 27.02.2021 in cash for booking the banquet hall. Thereafter, due to Covid lockdown guidelines announced by the Central Government of India the gathering was reduced to 100 persons on 15.03.2021 and the arrangements were revised. After few days again due to the new Government Guidelines the gathering was reduced to 50 on which both have agreed. Around one week before the marriage, Sh. Rajan, informed about the cancellation of the event, reasoning that the Government guidelines has further reduced the gathering to 20 persons, therefore, asking the complainant to postpone the marriage which was not possible as the wedding cards  were already printed and distributed. After that, the complainant has made a reservation in another hotel and marriage was completed as on the said date 25.4.2021.The complainant tried to approach the OP to refund the advance paid by him for banquet hall but the problem of the complainant remains unsolved. Due to the acts and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP through registered post on 28.10.2021 which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 06.12.2021.

3.             The complainant has tendered his 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, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments, alleging lapse and deficiency, made in the complaint has prayed for directions to the OP to refund the deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- to him along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment etc.

6.             It is evident as per reservation form(Annexure C-1) that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid in cash on 27.02.2021 for booking of the Banquet Hall located in Clarion Inn Sevilla Hotel i.e. OP for holding a marriage function on 25.04.2021, the invitation card(Annexure C-2) corroborates  the fact about the marriage on 25.04.2021, namely, Bhavana with Siddhartha in the venue at Clarion Inn Sevilla Hotel. Needless to mention here that severe restrictions on the gathering of the persons as well as on the movements of vehicular traffic were imposed  at National Level due to situation arising  due to the Covid-19. As per version of the complainant, the OP cancelled the marriage function one week before the date fixed i.e. 25.04.2021 thereby compelling the complainant to arrange the marriage function in another hotel i.e. Prabhat Inn, Sector-10, Panchkula on 25.04.2021. It is alleged that the marriage function could not be postponed as the wedding card had already been got distributed to the invitees. It is further version of the complainant that he tried in every manner to request the OP to refund the deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- to him but of no avail. The contentions and assertions of the complainant about making his request to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- are very well corroborated and substantiated by e-mail dated 27.08.2021(Annexure C-3) as also the complaint  lodged at the National Consumer helpline on 27.07.2021 vide grievance no.2864742(Annexure C-4). A perusal of the said grievance lodged at National Level helpline makes it evident that the complaint pertaining to refund of Rs.50,000/- by the OP to the complainant pursued the matter continuously till 07.09.2021 and as per remarks made on the National Consumer helpline, the complainant was advised to approach the Consumer Commission for redressal of his grievances.

6.             The OP preferred not to contest the present complaint and remained absent despite services of notice, accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.12.2021 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.                In view of the fact that the OP neither responded to the notice nor has he 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 OP had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that OP is liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

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

1. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.  
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations charges.

 

9.             The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP 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 OP. 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: 13.06.2022

 

        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.

 

                                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

                                              Member