DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.195/2018
Mr. Dinesh Suri
S/o Sh. B.R Suri
R/o M-6, Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024
….Complainant
Versus
The Director,
Essex Farms Pvt. Ltd.,
4, Aurobindo Marg,
New Delhi-110016
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 13.07.2018
Date of Order : 09.07.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Saurabh Sharma, Proxy counsel on behalf of Adv.
Sandeep Kapoor for complainant.
Adv. Ishaan Verma for OP.
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Facts of the case as pleaded by the complainant are that complainant chose the Banquet Hall of Essex Farm Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) for the reception function of his son on 05.02.2018. It is stated that complainant accepted the terms and conditions with respect to the charges and the complainant was assured by OP that they would provide four course meal with soft drinks, juices and mineral water bottles. It is stated that the complainant accepted the rate of Rs.1950+ taxes for non-veg menu along with a Chart Counter, Fruit Counter, Mineral Water Bottles, Two Live Stations and Drinks including Soft Drinks, Mocktails, Juices, etc. It is stated that the complainant had specifically added the Live counters and crepes to be served along with the dinner.
2. It is further stated that OP had promised for a specific bar and assured that tonic water will also be served along with drinks and had assured that the bar would be properly decorated with bottles and juices. However to utter surprise of the complainant, cold drinks and juices were not served to his guests, tonic water was not provided at the bar and instead of mineral water bottles, water glasses were served which were much cheaper . The Live counter and crepes were also missing in the buffet which were promised by OP.
3. It is further stated that in addition to the above deficiencies one mobile phone was stolen/lost inside the banquet hall. Complainant informed OP’s Manager regarding the missing mobile phone and other grievances with respect to the non service of the items which were specially promised by OP. Thereafter, representative of OP accepted the shortcomings on the Challan Form and put their respective signatures on it. It is next stated that the guest whose mobile phone had lost/stolen tonted the complainant for the loss of his valuable phone and told him about the low standard of security of OP’s Banquet. It is stated that several dignitaries who were present in the function at OP’s banquet. Complaint of poor of service, non-supply of above stated items and unprofessional behavior of the staff and waiters due to which complainant suffered mental agony as he has spent so much money in a reputed banquet so as to receive world class service and provide good time to his guests.
4. Considering the status and humiliation suffered by the complainant and his wife, it is stated that no amount can be computed towards compensation in terms of money, however, complainant has prayed for Rs.5,00,000/- towards the loss of reputation and Rs.20,000/- for the loss of one mobile phone.
5. It is stated that complainant explained the deficiencies of OPs with the view to resolve the matter but despite several requests, no heed was paid to the complainant’s grievances. Hence, alleging deficiency of service, complainant has prayed for direction to OP to pay Rs.5,20,000/- with interest @24% p.a from the date of payment till realization.
6. OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that the complainant has come before the Commission with un-cleaned hands. The complainant has concocted a false story so as to mislead to Commission. He has concealed relevant and material documents including reply dated 25.04.2018 and bill dated 05.02.2018 by OP. It is stated that complainant’s function was attended by about 25% persons less than the assured minimum guarantee by the complainant. After the function was over, complainant created an ugly scene and demanded that either a refund for the persons less than the minimum guarantee who attended, be given to him by OP or OP should offer him a separate diner for about 25 person on a subsequent date. It is stated that only after OP declined such an irrational and offal demand that the complainant started misbehaving with the staff and alleged various shortcomings which to be knowledge of the complainant were false, baseless and misconceived. The complainant had satisfied himself with the CCTV footage of the event during his visit to office of OP on 12.02.2018.
7. It is next stated that the menu for the buffet dinner was decided in consultation with the complainant and decides other dishes complainant had initially requested for live counters, including one for crepes, to be served along with dinner, however subsequently OP informed that the crepes are prepared using eggs and since there were vegetarian guests too. It was at the request of the complainant that OP instead offered a live counter serving Pasta, both vegetarian and non-vegetarian separately, to which complainant had readily agreed to at the time of finalization of the menu. Hence, there was one live counter serving Mongloian Food, both vegetarian and non vegetarian and another live counter serving Pasta both vegetarian and non vegetarian option being separately marked, for the convenience of the guest.
8. It is further stated that the complainant had independently engaged an outside agency to handle the bar decorations along with the preparation and service of drinks and cocktails. The said agency also provided experienced mixologist, bar bags, customized menu, garnishes, syrup, bar pops, glasses, fancy glass ware, molecular bar and among other things serviced soft drinks including tonic, soda, water, all juices, ice slabs and ice cubes at the bar counter. For this purpose apparently an amount of Rs.40000/- was paid by the complainant directly to the said agency.
9. It is next stated that to coerce OP complainant on the challan also alleged that one
- A car was allegedly damaged by the Valet
- Items were missing including a mobile phone, bracelet and a ladies coat.
- Limca, Tonic Water and Mineral Water was not served to his guests during the event.
10. It is stated that complainant himself scrabble d all the self serving baseless allegations on the challan dated 05.02.2018.
11. It is next stated that the complainant around 2nd March, 2018 approached to OP to host a part for free and on being denied the same complainant threatened OP with dark consequences.
12. In light of the facts stated above, OP praise for the complaint to be dismissed with the exemplary costs.
13. Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of complainant reiterating the fact that Limca (Cold drinks) and juices were not served to his guests. Tonic water was not served on the bar counter which was the duty of the OP and instead of mineral water bottles, water glasses were served. Live counter and crepes were also missing in the buffet. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties. Submissions made by the Learned counsels are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
14. Admittedly, complainant had booked OPs Banquet/Royal Pavilion for reception of his son on 05.02.2018. Complainant has alleged that cold drinks, juices, mineral water etc were not served as agreed by OP, in the reception function. The said allegation is proved to be false as after having seen the video recording CDs (placed as evidence on record) and also the photographs of the function it is evidently clear that cold drinks, mineral water bottles and juices was served at the said function. It can also be seen from the CD that OP had put up a Live counter.
15. As regards to complainant’s allegation about the mobile handset of one his guests being lost, complainant has not substantiated the said loss by way of any FIR or complaint lodged anywhere.
16. It is next noticed that two challans of the same date have been filed , one by the complainant and another is filed by OP. On close scrutiny of both the challans dated 05.02.2018 , it is observed that certain complaints have been written with a different pen in different ink, even the handwriting does not match. Hence, said document being doubtful cannot be read .
17. In light of the discussion above, we are of the view that the complainant has not been able to establish any deficiency on part of OP. Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
