Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/245

Lalit Mohan Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Country Inn and Suites By Radission - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Mittal

05 Jul 2021

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

                                                        C.C. No. :                      245 of 2019

                    Date of Institution:           04.10.2019

                                                           Date of Decision :             05.07.2021

 

Lalit Mohan Gupta, Advocate son of Sh Bimal Gupta resident of Adarsh Nagar, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Country Inn and Suites by Radisson, Sahibabad, 64/6, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.)-201010 through its Manager/M.D.
2. Managing Director, Country Inn and Suites by Radisson, Sahibabad, 64/6, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.)-201010.
3. Smt. Lalita Sharma, Sales Executive, Country Inn and Suites by Radisson, Sahibabad, 64/6, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.)-201010.

....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:      Sh. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

cc no.-245 of 2019

 

Present:      Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh J S Dhillon, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                                                * * * * * * * * *                                               

ORDER

(Sh. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President)

 

                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest and for further directing them to  pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.

2                                        The brief facts of the present complaint are that being influenced by advertisements given by OPs through internet, print media and other modes that they provide best services, complainant made his mind to organize a function in February 2020 at their hotel having accreditation of 4 stars. For this purpose, he approached OP-3 through telephone and internet and told that he wanted to organize a function in their hotel in February, 2020 and on this, OP-3 asked him to deposit Rs. 2 lacs with them to start negotiations for planning and booking of their hotel and for fixing the date to show the bonafide

cc no.-245 of 2019

of complainant. It was agreed between the parties that in case negotiations did not complete, then, amount of Rs.2 lacs deposited by complainant with them would be refunded by OPs to him. believing the representation given  by OPs, complainant deposited Rs. 2 lacs with OPs on 19.06.2019 through NEFT into the account of OPs. It is further submitted that negotiations between parties did not reach any end and then, complainant demanded his Rs.2 lacs back from OPs, but OPs kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and then, flatly refused to refund the same. Complainant also served legal notice to OPs wherein requested them to refund the amount of Rs.2 lacs deposited by him with OPs, but all in  vain. Complainant again sent legal notice to OPs, but nothing fruitful happened as OPs paid no heed to redress the grievance of complainant. Despite repeated requests, Ops paid no heed to genuine requests of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Act of OPs in not refunding the amount of complainant has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

 

cc no.-245 of 2019

3                                             The Complaint was admitted after hearing and notice was issued to OPs vide order dated 09.10.2019 to appear in person or through representative to file reply to the complaint.

4                                                        OPs appeared in Commission through Counsel after being served and filed reply wherein took preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as complainant cannot take the benefits of his own wrongs. He has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive and he does not fall under the definition of consumer. This Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as alleged service provider belongs to Ghaziabad and it has no branch office at Faridkot. No cause of action arises at Faridkot as all the bookings were made by complainant at the hotel of OPs at Sahibabad, U.P. moreover, lengthy evidence is required to prove the case which is not permissible in the summary proceedings of Consumer Forum and it can be best adjudicated before Civil Court. Complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. It is further averred that

cc no.-245 of 2019

they have been in the business of hotels for over many years and have been greeting their customers with best comforts. On 12.06.2019, complainant approached them through his authorized representative, who after understanding the price structure and visiting the venue expressed desire to negotiate for hosting function of wedding in their hotel in the month of February, 2020. Said representative insisted to block the banquet for 23^rd, 24^th and 25^th Februrary, 2020 for lunch for 50, 50 and 100 guests respectively and 400 guests in GBR Hall and 25 rooms each for 23^rd, 24^th February, 2020 and 80 rooms alongwith one computer room for 25^th February, 2020 for atleast a month at the rate of Rs.5000/-per room per day before he could finally take a decision to hold a function in the hotel of OP-1. It was already discussed with authorized representative of complainant at the time of booking that as the reservation is in bulk and OP-1 shall have to lock hold most of its rooms for the respective dates and thus, cancellation would attract forfeiture of 30% of total value of booking consideration which was agreed to be Rs.21,21,000/- and only upon agreeing to said terms, reservation was made by OPs in favour of complainant on their request and after getting confirmation from complainant, said representative of complainant confirmed the booking. It is further averred that complainant has

cc no.-245 of 2019

never been personally in touch with answering OPs and entire dealing on behalf of complainant was done by his authorized representative except the payment of Rs. 2 lacs, which were paid by complainant himself after fully understanding the terms and conditions and cancellation policy of OPs. It is denied that they have withheld the amount of complainant, rather it is the complainant who has withheld the payment towards the token amount at the rate of 30% of total booking amount which answering OPs are entitled to claim as per agreed terms and conditions between the parties. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and all the allegations levelled by complainant alongwith allegations for relief sought are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of bank account statement Ex C-2, Hotel Photos and Reviews of hotel of OPs Ex C-3 and Ex C-4, legal notice issued by complainant through his counsel and postal receipts Ex C-5 to Ex C-12.

 

cc no.-245 of 2019

6                                                         To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Naresh Chander Sharma Ex OP-1, affidavit of Lalita Sharma Ex OP-2, document Ex OP-3 is authority letter, Ex OP-4 is Guest Request Form, OP-5 and Op-6 are e-mails and correspondence occurred between complainant and OPs, OP-7 is copy of cheque received by Ops from complainant and OP-8 and OP-9 are part of conversation between complainant and representative of complainant. ExC-10 is copy of letter issued by OPs to complainant requiring him to deposit 30% of advance booking amount, otherwise they would cancel the event. And then, ld counsel for OPs closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7                                         We have heard the learned counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have also gone through the record produced by respective parties.

8                                          From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests OPs have not refunded  his amount of Rs 2 lacs received by them for

cc no.-245 of 2019

booking their hotel, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. To prove his grievance, he has relied upon document Ex C-2, which is copy of bank account of complainant that clearly proves the pleadings of complainant that amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited by complainant in to the account of  OPs on 19.06.2019 through NEFT. Ex 5 is copy of legal notice dated 30.07.2019, got served by complainant to OPs through his counsel, wherein he made request to them to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-deposited by with OPs. Ex C-9 is copy of another legal notice dated26.08.2019 issued by complainant to OPs that further reveals his grievance that Ops did not pay any heed to genuine requests of complainant and illegally withheld the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-deposited by him with OPs. Ex C-10 to Ex C-12 are copies of postal receipts that reveals that notice issued by complainant counsel was duly served to OPs. Through his affidavit Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated his grievance. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence that proves the fact that there is trade mal practice on the part of OPs in not refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-to complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to him.

 

cc no.-245 of 2019

9                                           Bare perusal of account statement Ex C-2 submitted by complainant clearly reveals the point that on 19.06.2019, Rs.2,00,000/-were credited to the account of Country Inn and Suites/ OP through NEFT. Moreover, it is already admitted by opposite party in written statement that amount of Rs.2,00,000/-was received by them from complainant through bank transaction on 19.06.2021. Ex C-5 to Ex C-12 are copies of legal notices alongwith postal receipts  sent by complainant to OPs to redress his grievance. Moreover, it is duly admitted by OPs in present case that they received Rs.2 lacs from complainant through bank transaction. There is no denial to the fact that OPs demanded this amount for negotiations regarding fixing the date for booking the hotel room and it was also agreed that if negotiations did not reach any end then, entire amount would be refunded. In present case, complainant being attracted and allured by the good services and reputation of OPs desired to avail the services of OPs for conducting a function in their hotel and paid Rs.2 lacs for making negotiations regarding booking the hotel rooms, but said negotiation did not reach any end and order for booking rooms was cancelled by complainant. It is admitted case of the parties that neither any services were availed by complainant nor any services were provided by hotel owner. Apart

cc no.-245 of 2019

from this, when complainant has not availed any services, then Ops have no right to withhold his huge amount of Rs.2 lacs without any reason. No plausible reason is specified by Ops for not refunding the amount received from complainant. Only saying that Rs. 2 lacs were received only for making negotiation for booking the hotel rooms does not sound good itself as during the booking period complainant has not used their electricity, furniture, appliances, gazettes, cookies, staff and other services for organizing the function. Mere saying that Rs.2 lacs were taken for negotiations, is illegal and unlawful attack on someone’s money. Lame excuses forwarded by OPs do not seem justifiable.

10                                                 From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence produced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in  not refunding the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to complainant. There is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it caused harassment to complainant. Therefore, present complaint is hereby allowed against OPs and OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Two lacs) to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousands) as compensation to

cc no.-245 of 2019

complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.3000/- for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:  05.07.2021

(Param Pal Kaur)     (Aminder Singh Sidhu)

    Member                President

                                                                                (Addl. Charge)