.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the Complaint in brief is that Complainant is a businessman running a petrol bunk in Tamilnadu, he had to attend a conference of IBP petrol at Mysore on 15.11.2006. Therefore, the power of attorney holder of the Complainant on his behalf booked a room in the hotel of the Opposite party on 14.11.2006 at 7.30 p.m. for the stay of the Complainant on 15.11.2006 by paying a sum of Rs.1,350/-. The Complainant arrived at Mysore on 15.11.2006 at 7.45 a.m. with his friend, reached the Opposite party hotel and requested for a room, but the manager did not behave well and at 9.30 a.m. the Manager of the Opposite party told him that it takes some more time to provide a room. The Complainant and his friend waited at the Opposite party hotel up to 1.30 p.m., as the Opposite party did not provide them room, then they went and booked a room in hotel The Viceroy, like this the Opposite party though had received the consideration and booked a room failed to accommodate him. Therefore, has prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for negligence in rendering service and to refund the entire charges paid by them. <br /> 2. The Opposite party has filed it’s version now filed contending that the Complainant is not maintainable in the form now filed and denying the deficiency and other allegations admitted booking of a room for the stay of the Complainant on 15.11.2006, on the previous day but contended that the Complainant on 15.11.2006 arrived at 7.30 a.m. knowing well that the check in and check out time of their hotel was 12.00 noon. When the Complainant reached the Opposite party hotel the staff explained him about check in and check out time and requested him to relax in the lounge for some time assuring him of providing a room, they waited till 12.00 in the midnight of 15.11.2006, but the Complainant did not turn up. The Opposite party further denying all other allegations has submitted for dismissal of the Complaint.<br /> 3. The General Power of Attorney Holder of the Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing the grievances made in the Complaint one Gajendra Kumar of the Opposite party hotel has filed affidavit evidence re-asserting the contentions they have taken in the version. The counsel for the Opposite party has cross-examined the general power of attorney holder of the Complainant. The counsel for the Complainant has cross-examined the witness of the Opposite party and the Opposite party has also examined one of its officials. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. The counsel for the Opposite party has also filed its written arguments.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite party has caused deficiency in its service in not providing room accommodation in their hotel at 7.30 a.m. on 15.11.2006?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 & 2:- The fact that the General Power of Attorney Holder of the Complainant on 14.11.2006 booked a room in the hotel of the Opposite party for the stay of the Complainant on 15.11.2006 on payment of Rs.1,350/- is not at all in dispute. But the dispute between the parties is according to the Opposite party that the Opposite party is a Star Hotel maintained its high reputation has also published and issued cancellation policy which includes the check in and check out timings of that hotel for the general knowledge of the customers and have contended that the check in and check out that hotel of is at 12.00 noon everyday and this was made known to the general power of attorney holder who booked the room for the Complainant. Despite that the Complainant went to their hotel on 15.11.2006 at 7.30 a.m., but even then the hotel staff requested the Complainant to relax in the lounge till the room is made available, but the Complainant did not thereafter turn up. But it is the case of the Complainant that himself and his friend on that day waited at the hotel of the Opposite party till 1.30 p.m., but the Opposite party did not provide him a room, as such thereafter they moved to a different hotel. It is the case of the Complainant that they were not made known of the check in and check out time and therefore, the contention of the Opposite party is unacceptable and have prayed for the relief.<br /> 7. The material point of check in and check out timings of the hotel being in dispute, we shall now go through the evidence of the parties and the documents to find out whether the general power of attorney holder of the Complainant was made known of check in and check out timings and whether it was the responsibility of the Complainant to ascertain the check in and check out timings before he reserved a room. The general power of attorney holder of the Complainant in his affidavit evidence has stated as if the Complainant and his friend who went to the hotel of the Opposite party on that day waited up to 1.30 p.m., but the Opposite party did not provide them room, then the Complainant was forced to go to a different hotel. This witness in his affidavit evidence has not whispered anything of he having had ascertained the check in and check out timings with any of the officials of the Opposite party or any of them having informed him. The Opposite party in proof of its official having informed the general power of attorney holder of the Complainant about check in and check out timings in the cross-examination by the counsel for the Complainant has volunteered that he had explained everything to the customer at the time of issuing the receipt along with the receipt Ex.C.1 he had also given cancellation policy copy and a broucher. The learned counsel for the Complainant has not further cross-examined this witness namely Vipul in he having had handed over a cancellation policy copy and a broucher to the general power of attorney holder of the Complainant. However, the suggestion of the counsel for the Complainant that this witness did not explain anything to the customer except issuing Ex.C.1 has been denied. Therefore, virtually we find no evidence elicited in the cross-examination of this witness Vipul in he having had explained the check in and check out timings of the hotel of the Opposite party. Now coming to the cross-examination of the general power of attorney holder of the Complainant who had booked a room for the Complainant though at the first instance stated that he was not informed the timing of check in and check out, but stated that he did not find any necessity of knowing the timings of check in and check out. That he did not know the timing of check in and check out was 12.00 p.m. and further stated that he did not collect broucher of that hotel and he had no difficulty in collecting the broucher. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of the general power of attorney holder of the Complainant that when he booked a room for the Complainant did not bother to enquire about check in and check out timings of the hotel and stated as if it was necessary to know about it. The Opposite party has produced a photograph of the counter of the hotel of the Opposite party wherein a board displaying check in and check out time is displayed and in which we find the check in and check out timing is noted as 12.00 noon. The Complainant has not controverted the evidence of the witness of the Opposite party and display of that board at the counter, but it is suggested in the cross-examination of the Opposite party witness namely Gajendra Kumar that check in and check out timing board can be taken out and kept at any time. No doubt that the board is a movable one and it can be placed on the table of the receptionist and removed at any time, but we do not find any such necessity for the Opposite party to keep that board of check in and check out timings at the receptionist counter to suit there convince and to remove it. The Complainant as we have pointed out above since has not disputed the display of board. Though it can be removed and kept again as and when required that itself is not sufficient to accept that the Opposite party had removed that board when the general power of attorney holder booked the room and have again kept it there thereafter. Even otherwise, when a customer approaches a Star Hotel for reservation of a room it is his primary responsibility to first ascertain the check in and check out timings of that hotel to know at what time he can enter into the room and at what time he is required to vacate in order to get over from the extra payments or excess payments. No doubt, a duty also castes on the Management to make know the check in and check out timings to the customers. The Opposite party have produced the cancellation policy of their hotel which contain all the details including the timing of check in and check out which was also given CW.1. Therefore, we did not agree with the Complainant that the Opposite party had not made known the check in and check out timings and there is no necessity for them to conceal that timing particularly to this Complainant. <br /> 8. The Complainant in the Complaint and the affidavit evidence has contended as if himself and his friend A.D.Bhaskar arrived at Mysore on 15.11.2006 at 7.45 a.m. and they waited at the hotel of the Opposite party till 1.30 p.m. But the Opposite party has denied the said allegation and the Opposite party invited our attention to a receipt produced by the Complainant along with this Complaint which discloses that the friend of the Complainant namely A.D.Bhaskar booked a room in hotel Viceroy, Mysore on 15.11.2006 at 11.08.21 a.m. The general power of attorney holder of the Complainant in the witness box has admitted that A.D.Bhaskar who came with the Complainant booked a room in the Viceroy hotel and then the Complainant and that A.D.Bhaskar stayed in that hotel. The admission of the general power of attorney holder of the Complainant in the cross-examination admitted that the booking receipt reveal that they booked a room in Viceroy hotel somewhere around 11.00 a.m. Therefore, the contention of the Complainant and evidence of the general power of attorney holder that the Complainant and his friend waited at the hotel of the Opposite party till 1.30 p.m. cannot be believed. Further, the witness of the Opposite party has denied that they did not provide room to the Complainant till 1.30 p.m. The evidence of general power of attorney holder of the Complainant that the hotel people made the Complainant and his friend to wait till 1.30 p.m. that they did not respond properly. In our view is far from truth because as admitted by CW.1 the general power of attorney holder of the Complainant on 15.11.2006 when the Complainant with his friend to went to the hotel of the Opposite party at 7.45 a.m. he was not with them at the hotel and he stated to had gone latter and has admitted categorically that he do not know what transpired in the hotel in the morning between the Complainant and the hotel. Neither the Complainant, nor his friend A.D.Bhaskar have filed any affidavit or given evidence before this Forum deposing as to what transpired at the hotel where the Opposite party refused to give the room or asked them to wait for sometime and also regarding the alleged rude behaviour of the Management people. The general power of attorney holder of the Complainant admittedly being not a witness as to what transpired between the Complainant and the Opposite party is not competent to speak and to say that the Complainant waited till 1.30 p.m. even then the Opposite party did not provide the room. The best witness to speak about this deficiency was either the Complainant himself or his friend A.D.Bhaskar. Therefore, the general power of attorney holder could not have filed an affidavit to the facts which are not within his knowledge to attribute deficiency to the Opposite party. It is on perusal of the entire evidence and contention of the parties, it is manifest that the general power of attorney holder who booked the room for the Complainant in the hotel of the Opposite party did not bother to either ascertain the check in and check out timing of the hotel or to bear in mind about that timings after knowing the board displayed or from the broucher given to him and to convey the same to the Complainant. The Complainant who on his arrival after being informed of the check in and check out timings either should have waited till their time come or in the event of any exigency could have requested the Opposite party to allow him to check in to the hotel with the knowledge of check out timing in brief period, but goes away from the hotel and books a room and stayed there at around 11.00 a.m. The Complainant in our view is therefore has failed to prove any sort of deficiency on the part of the Opposite party, as such there are no merits in the Complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed as such we answer points No.1 & 2 in the negative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />