Haryana
Panchkula
CC/271/2017
VIVEK BERRY. - Complainant(s)
Versus
HOLIDAY IN CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA - Opp.Party(s)
B.R MADAN
01 Oct 2019
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA
Consumer Complaint No | : | 271 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 30.11.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 01.10.2019 |
Vivek Berry, 3, Nehru Apartment, Outer Road Kalka Ji, New Delhi.
….Complainant
Versus
1. Holiday Inn Chandigarh Panchkula, City Centre, Sector 3, Panchkula, Haryana through its G.M.
2. Holiday Inn Chandigarh Panchkula, City Centre, Sector-3, Panchkula, Haryana, through its Authorized Signatory.
3. Ashwani Kumar, Assistant Food & Beverage Manager, Holiday Inn Chandigarh Panchkula, City Centre, Sector-3, Panchkula, Haryana.
….Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Satpal, President.
Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.
Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.
For the Parties: Mr.B.R.Madan, Advocate for the complainant alongwith Sh.Varun Sharma, Advocate.
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
(Satpal, President)
1. The brief facts of the present complaint are that due to wedding function in the family of the complainant, he was in requirement of a good and reasonable hotel having a good reputation in the vicinity of Chandigarh where a marriage function can be performed and accordingly, the complainant visited OP-Hotel, where the representative of the OP-Hotel had assured about the reputation of hotel with regard to facilities being provided to its customers and fair dealing with the customers. Accordingly, believing the assurance of the OPs, the complainant agreed to perform wedding function of his son in the hotel of OPs and booked the OP-hotel for two days i.e. 12.12.2015 and 13.12.2015. It was further mutually agreed that:-
1. The complainant will occupy minimum 60 rooms (120 persons) and will be charged Rs.4,750/- per person per room on double occupancy basis, which also includes three meals per day and nothing extra will be charged.
2. It was further agreed that if there would be any requirement of extra mattresses for third/fourth guest, who will stay in the same room then the extra charges of Rs.2,800/- per guest for each mattress will be payable which will also include three meals for each such guest.
3. Moreover, for guests who do not stay in the hotel the extra charges will be Rs.1600 per guest for Dinner and Rs.850 per guest for lunch subject to a minimum guarantee of a total 175 guest.
In this regard, agreement was signed between the complainant and OPs. After the completion of wedding function, the OPs raised a bill and the complainant paid the entire amount as raised by them. After few days after performing the wedding function, the photographer, whose services were availed by the complainant visited the complainant and raised a bill of Rs.12,000/- for the room for which he was charged by the OPs. It is relevant to mention here that the OPs above charge from the photographer is in contradiction to the agreement as the rooms occupied during the function were less than the minimum guarantee of 60 rooms and the complainant had paid for the minimum guaranteed 60 rooms. He verified the bills charged by the OPs from the complainant and found that the OPs charged an excess amount to the tune of Rs.39,680/- by raising an invoice without taking into account the minimum guarantee amount which the complainant had already paid to the OPs and the amount paid for the extra beds. The amount of Rs.39,680/- excess charged by the OPs is explained below:-
a) | Amount charged from the complainant’s photographer even though his stay should have been adjusted in the minimum guarantee of rooms already paid by the complainant. |
| Rs.12,000 |
B) | The OPs charged the complainant for 55 guests for the Dinner on Day 1 and Day 2 and lunch on Day 2. However the OPs made an error while doing this as the OPs did not reduce from this figure of 55 guests the number of guests for whom they had already charged for extra beds for Day 1 (5 extra beds) and for Day2 (8 extra beds) Hence the extra amount charged by the OPs is as follows:-
|
Rs.8000 Rs.6800 Rs.12800 |
Rs.27600 |
c) | Extra charge for the DJ |
| Rs. 80 |
| Total |
| Rs.39680 |
Accordingly, the complainant asked the OPs to refund the excessive amount and made telephonic request to OP No.3 and also sent e-mails on 30th December, 2015. The OP No.3 further forwarded e-mail dated 13.9.2016 of Finance Manager of the OPs. It was intimated that the revenue was already punched in the system same day of the function and the query was raised in April, 2016 after financial year closing and for reversing revenue of last year approval from auditor in area office is required and they have not approved revenue reversal. After that, the complainant has served a legal notice upon the OPs but they did not reply the same. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and baseless. On merits, OPs No.1 to 3 stated that the bill raised was duly checked by the complainant before making the payment to the OPs. The complainant was very much satisfied with the warm hospitality of the OPs and appreciated the efforts put in by the staff to make the function a success and no discomfort was faced by the complainant. Further in event of any default or any excess amount charged by the complainant at the time of payment of the bill, but no such objections were raised by the complainant. Further, the name of Mr.Adarsh Saini was not mentioned in the guest list of the group check in for the said function of the complainant. The complainant had no intimation of the photographer to be present at the wedding venue, when the said function was a wedding destination. However, while checking in Mr. Adarsh Saini alongwith one Mr. Rohit checked in the hotel on 12.12.2015 independently and never mentioned any group check in with the complainant nor did they mention that they are guest of the complainant. Therefore, it is clearly not in contradiction of the agreement as guest list is provided to the OPs prior to the function and there is no such mention of Mr. Adarsh Saini in the provided list. It is further submitted that Mr. Adarsh Saini, deposited advance of Rs.6000/- through his own credit cards at the time checking in the hotel and further gave rest of the payment of Rs.6,000/- vide cash while checking out. There was no communication of their stay to OPs and neither did they object to their independent stay and payment further. At the very outset it could have been objected by the complainant for receiving Rs.6000/- from the photographer at the point of checking in with the OP. Furthermore, while checking out on 14.12.2015, Mr. Adarsh did not raise any objection towards the payment of the hotel bill neither it was once pointed out by the complainant, as while checking out. If there was any misunderstanding pertaining to the payment of the hotel bill for their stay, as the complainant was already present in the hotel premises only. The charges levied against the services are in accordance with the actual number of the guests arrived and stayed at the hotel. It is denied that the bill was raised without the guests arrived and stayed at the hotel and the bill was raised without taking in account the minimum guarantee, however the minimum guarantee was deducted before calculating the final payables by the Ops. It is further denied that amount charged by the photographer should have been adjusted in the minimum guarantee. It is also denied that there has been any miscalculation or error while charging the services as this is the actual number of guest and beds used by the complainant during the function. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
3. The learned counsel for complainant has tendered the 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. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has tendered the Affidavit as Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the OP tendered the billing summary which we take on record as Mark A for the proper adjudication of the dispute as well as in the interest of justice.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the entire record including the written arguments/submissions minutely and carefully.
6. It is evident that the complainant booked the Holiday Inn hotel situated in Panchkula on 25 August 2015 for the wedding function to be held on 12 and 13 December 2015 and in this regard, an agreement Annexure C-1 containing the detailed terms and conditions with regard to the rates, facilities catering and lodging etc. was executed between the parties. It is also evident that marriage function was smoothly held on the aforesaid dates in the said Holiday Inn hotel at Panchkula on 12 and 13 December 2015 and the complainant has no grievances with regard to any of the services rendered by the OP relating to boarding and lodging etc. during the wedding function except the charging of rates. It is the case of the complainant that the OPs have charged an excess amount to the tune of Rs.39,680/- by raising an invoice in utter violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement Annexure C-1. The details of charging of excess amount was alleged by the complainant are given as below
Sr.NO. | Particulars of Head |
| Amount |
|
|
|
|
A) | Amount charged from the complainant’s photographer even though his stay should have been adjusted in the minimum guarantee of rooms already paid by the complainant. |
| Rs.12,000 |
|
|
|
|
B) | The OPs charged the complainant for 55 guests for the Dinner on Day 1 and Day 2 and lunch on Day 2. However the OPs made an error while doing this as the OPs did not reduce from this figure of 55 guests the number of guests for whom they had already charged for extra beds for Day 1 (5 extra beds) and for Day2 (8 extra beds) Hence the extra amount charged by the OPs is as follows:-
|
Rs.8000 Rs.6800 Rs.12800 |
Rs.27600 |
|
|
|
|
c) | Extra charge for the DJ |
| Rs. 80 |
|
|
|
|
| Total |
| Rs.39680 |
|
|
|
|
We take up the above objections with regard to charging of excess amount for discussion in the same seriatim
A. | Amount charged from the complainant’s photographer even though his stay should have been adjusted in the minimum guarantee of rooms already paid by the complainant |
The complainant has alleged that an amount of Rs.12,000/- has been charged from the photographer though the complainant had made the payment under the condition of minimum guarantee of 60 rooms to the OP. It has been alleged that the OPs while charging an amount of Rs.12000/- from the photographers had acted in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement (Annexure C-1).
The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant had made the payment for the minimum guaranteed 60 rooms whereas the rooms occupied during the function were less than the minimum guaranteed of 60 rooms. It has been contended that there was no justification for the OPs to charge an amount of Rs.12,000/- from the photographers for their stay in view of the fact that there remained many rooms unutilized with the OPs under the condition of minimum guaranteed 60 rooms.
7. On the other hand, the OPs have countered the contention of complainant stating that the OPs committed no illegality while charging an amount of Rs.12,000/- from the photographers on account of their stay in the hotel. The learned counsel for the OPs vehemently contended that the complainant had provided a list of guest (Annexure R-1) with their names and rooms prior to the event and the said list did not contain the names of Mr. Adarsh Saini and Mr. Rohit photographers. The learned counsel contended that the said photographers did not inform the OPs while checking in on 12.12.2015 that they were a part of the complainant’s guest group. It is contended that the said photographers made the advance payment of Rs.6000/- through credit card at the time of checking in and further gave the rest of the payment of Rs.6000/- in cash while checking out on 14.12.2015. It is further contended that the said photographer did not raise any objection while checking out when payment was made on 14.12.2015. The learned counsel asserted that the complainant did not bring the facts about the stay of the photographers in the hotel during 12.12.2015 to 14.12.2015 into the notice of the OPs prior to the billing in question. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel invited our attention towards the list of guest Annexure R1 and the invoice Annexure R2 in support of his contention stating that there has been no violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement Annexure C1 on the part of the OPs as alleged.
8. We do not agree with the contentions of the OP that the issue with regard to charging of Rs.12,000/- on account of stay of the photographer during the wedding function was not brought into their notice at the time of billing on the following grounds:-
- Firstly, the OP vide mail dated 20.09.2015 Annexure C-3 has admitted that the intimation for adjusting the amount pertaining to two rooms in main billing was received after the end of the function. The mail Annexure C-1 is of utmost importance to reveal the truth and hence the same is reproduced as under:-
Rooms requirements-65 rooms on double occupancy basis i.e. for 130 pax for two nights stay
(As discussed better estimate of the rooms required will be given by the client by end of September 2015).
The client as on date in any case gives a minimum guarantee of 60 rooms. Also the client expects that he will utilize 65 to 75 rooms.
9. From the perusal of above it is crystal clear that the OPs were very well aware about the stay of the photographers and complainant has intimated the OPs for adjusting the two rooms in the main billing as he has made the payment for minimum guarantee of 60 rooms. Further, it has also been revealed from the perusal of the said mail Annexure C-3 that the request for the adjustment of photographer’s bill in the main billing was declined only on the ground that the revenue was punched in the system on the date of the function and the query related to this was raised in April 16 after the financial year closing which is factually erroneous and incorrect as we have found that the complainant has disputed the charging by the OPs vide email dated 30th December, 2015 Annexure C-2 i.e. much before the closing of financial year. Furthermore, the aforesaid email Annexure C-3 reveals that the request of the complainant was declined because the auditor of the area had not approved the refund of the amount in question. In this regard, we do not come across any report of the auditor, on the basis of which the OPs have declined the prayer of the complainant.
10. Secondly, it is not disputed that the complainant has paid for the minimum 60 rooms even when some of the rooms were admittedly, lying unutilized/vacant. Therefore, there was no justification on the part of the OPs to charge separately for the stay of the photographers which were undisputedly were present at the time of wedding function to cover the marriage related events by way of photography and videography. It is also not the case of OP that there were several wedding function on 12 to 14 December 2015 and thus there was no occasion for any misunderstanding or confusion with regard to the fact that photographers namely Adarsh Saini and Mr. Rohit were part of the complainant’s guest group.
11. In view of the above we find no justification on the part of the OPs to decline the prayer of the complainant with regard to the refund of the sums as received from the photographers.
B) | The OPs charged the complainant for 55 guests for the Dinner on Day 1 and Day 2 and lunch on Day 2. However the OPs made an error while doing this as the OPs did not reduce from this figure of 55 guests the number of guests for whom they had already charged for extra beds for Day 1 (5 extra beds) and for Day2 (8 extra beds) Hence the extra amount charged by the OPs is as follows:-
|
Rs.8000 Rs.6800 Rs.12800 |
Rs.27600 |
12. The complainant has alleged that the OPs have charged at the rate of 1600 for the dinner and 850 for the lunch with respect to the guest who had availed the mattresses from the OPs during their stay. The learned counsel has alleged that the OPs have charged contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement whereby nothing was to be charged for the breakfast, lunch and dinner from the guest who had availed extra bed/mattresses during the stay in the hotel. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance upon clause 2 and 3 of the agreement Annexure C-1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs while refuting the contention of the complainant with regard to the charging for the breakfast, lunch and dinner from the guest availing extra bed stated that nothing were charged from those guest who had obtained the extra bed during their stay in the hotel on 12 and 13 December. In this regard, the learned counsel invited our attention towards Mark A.
13. We have perused the billing summary Mark A which make it evident that nothing was charged from the 5 guest+8 guest total 13 guest who had availed the extra bed during their stay. The billing summary Mark-A is not disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant. A perusal of the billing summary clearly show that the rate has been charged as per the terms and conditions of the agreement Annexure C-1 and we find no deviation from the specific terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence, we decline the request of the complainant.
14. Extra charge for the DJ.
The Complainant has alleged that an amount of Rs.80/- has been charged as extra for the DJ service. In this regard, no evidence has been submitted by the complainant. The agreement Annexure C1/R3 deals with the charging with regard to DJ Service which says as under
DJ at a charge of Rs.10,000/-+14% Tax will be provided by Holiday Inn.PPL charges+14%Tax will be paid additionally by the client on actual basis.
15. As the complainant had failed to point out any wrong charges with regard to DJ services, hence, his prayer with regard is rejected.
16. In view of our findings recorded in foregoing paragraphs against the Serial No.A we have concluded that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OPs while delivering services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.
17. With regard to relief we find that the photographers had made the payment of Rs.11,998.66/- out of which Rs.5054.00+5054.00= 11108/- had been paid on account of accommodation charges. Rest of the amount was paid on account of luxury tax, VAT Tax, Service tax etc. Thus, the complainant is entitled to a refund of Rs. 5054.00+5054.00= 11108/- only.
18. The complaint is dismissed qua OP No. 3 as he is allegedly an employee/manager of OPs No. 1 and 2.
19. As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 and 2:-
- To pay a sum of Rs.11,108/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
- To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
- To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation charges.
20. The OPs No. 1 and 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 and 2. 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:01.10.2019
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.
Satpal
President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.