Punjab

Sangrur

CC/636/2017

Aashima Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Golden Valley Resort - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rohit Jain

04 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.    636

                                                Instituted on:      01.12.2017

                                                Decided on:       04.07.2018

 

1.Aashima Gupta daughter of Pawan Kumar, resident of Mansa, now wife of Sh. Saurav Garg son of Sh. Rajesh Garg, resident of Street No.3, Thalesa Bagh Colony, Opposite BSNL Park, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

Golden Valley Resort through its owner, Patiala Road, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OP                      :       Shri K.S.Toor, Advocate.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Aashima Gupta and Saurav Garg, complainants (referred to as complainants in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the marriage of the complainants was solemnized on 9.10.2017 and for their reception they got booked Golden Valley Resort at Sangrur for 11.10.2017 and paid Rs.3,15,000/- in cash, but no receipt was paid.  The complainants reached at the resort of the OP and at that time the complainant number 1 was wearing jewellery including mangalsutar, golden set (neck less and earrings) and the golden set was worth Rs.1,26,829/-.  Further case of the complainants is that at the time of booking, the owner of the OP apprised that the resort is fully secured as the same is under vision of CC cameras and other necessary things.  The case of the complainants is that the complainants were sitting on the stage and after that they went to dancing floor from there they went for photo shoot and from there they went to dining table and when they were taking their dinner along with other guests, the complainant number 2 noticed that neck less of the complainant number 1 was not in her neck and on noticing the fact the complainants were shocked and tried to find out the same here and there, but the same was not found.  Further case of the complainants is that on the very next day, the complainant number 2 and his father went to the office of resort where the owner was present and they saw CC camera footing of 11.10.2017 and found that at the time of photo shoot, the complainant number 1 was bearing the neck less, but after that footing was not available with the owner saying that the CC camera which is covering passage from photo shoot to dining table is not working. Further case of the complainants is that if the cameras of the OP had been working, then the neck less could be found.  It is stated further that though the OP had assured that all the CC cameras are working, but it clearly reveals that all the CC cameras were not working. The complainant requested the OP to make the loss good, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainants have prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.3,15,000/- so taken by the OP and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, it has been admitted to the extent that the complainant got booked the resort of the OP for their reception party, but it is denied that the OP charged an amount of Rs.3,15,000/-, rather the complainants paid only Rs.50,000/- as a rent of the resort.  It has been denied that the complainant number 1 was wearing mangalsutar, golden set etc. for want of knowledge.  It is stated further that the OP had charged only rent for the resort and the remaining things like catering etc. for the reception was arranged by the complainant himself.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. It is stated that the footage of the camera was provided to the complainants.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP/1  to Ex.OP/3 affidavit and documents and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainants are the consumer of the OPs by getting booked the resort of the OP for marriage reception of the complainants on 11.10.2017.  Though the case of the complainants is that they paid an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- to the OP, but the OP has admitted that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was charged from the complainants, thus, it seems that the complainants are the consumers of the OP by taking the service of the OP.

 

6.             In the present case, the learned counsel for the complainants has contended vehemently that at the time of booking of the resort, the OP apprised that the resort in question is fully equipped with CC TV cameras and every thing will be fully covered.  The learned counsel for the complainants has further contended that the complainant number 1 has suffered loss due to misplacement of her neck less the cost of which was to the tune of Rs.1,26,829/-.  Had there been full coverage of CC TV cameras, then it could be detected that where the said neck less has been misplaced or had been stolen by any one. Though the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the footage of the CC TV camera has been provided by copying the same in the pen drive, but there is no proof to that effect produced on the record by the OP.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the loss caused to the complainant could be avoided if the CC TV cameras were provided by the OP in the resort.  There is no explanation from the side of the Op that why the resort was not fully covered with the CC TV camera.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. This order of ours be complied with within a  period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 4, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member