Date of Filing 29.12.2023

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 25.03.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                         …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL.,                                                                              ……MEMBER-I

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, ICWA(Inter), BL.,                                                            ……MEMBER-II

CC.No.08/2024

THIS MONDAY, THE 25^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

 Mr.G.Alagesan,

No.1/7, Agasthiar Street,

Sri Ambal Nagar,

Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089.                                                             ......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

Hotal AKSHAYA,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.1/9, Mount – Poonamallee Road,

Ayyappanthangal, Chennai 600 056.                                                   ….opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                           : Mr.M.Rajabathar, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                       :  Mr.V.Ayyaparaja, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 14.03.2024 in the presence of Mr.M.Rajabathar, counsel for the complainant and Mr.V.Ayyaparaja, counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Tmt.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with regard to marriage hall booking along with a prayer to refund the excess amount of Rs.30,125/- paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of payment till date of repayment and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Complaint filed against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service in booking hall and providing catering service to the marriage reception of complainant’s son which took place on 09.07.2023.

3. It was the case of the complainant that the opposite party was running a hotel in the name and style of Hotel Akshaya which also had a community hall utilised for mini functions like Betrothal, Valaikappu, Seemantham, Marriage reception etc. It was a long Hall that is divided into three small halls with wooden sliding doors and named Kurunji, Mullai and Marutham Hall and each hall would accommodate around 150 people.  If anyone wants a big hall and expects a larger number of guests, the opposite party would remove the wooden partition to accommodate a larger number of guests.  The person using the hall has to pay 5,250/- as maintenance charges for each hall and for three halls Rs.15,750/- charged as maintenance charges plus the food supplied by them.  The opposite party would not allow outside catering to the function of the customer.  For the decoration, the opposite party charges an extra amount and the decoration work has to be given only to the management person.  No outside decorator was allowed.  For this function they have charged Rs.26,000/- for decoration.  A total amount of Rs.41,750/- was charged by the opposite party towards maintenance and for decoration charges.   The complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.15,750/- towards maintenance charges.  The complainant was also directed to pay the decoration cost in addition to the total cost of the dinner for 400 persons immediately after selecting the dinner menu. The complainant had chosen the dinner menu -1 which costs Rs.425/- per head and the complainant was asked to pay the entire amount with GST.  The complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.1,83,500/- on 05.07.2023.  The opposite party had agreed to hand over the hall at 6.00pm on 09.07.2023.  But when the complainant and their family members started assembling in the hall around 5.30 pm they found that the hall was not ready.  The reception Hall, dining hall and the stage were found in a complete mess. Stage was also made ready only after that.  It all took more than one hour to clear the waste and to arrange the chairs. The decoration was also made ready only thereafter.  The decorator had just altered the stage with some minor changes in the existing decoration.  The entire decoration was made only with plastic flowers and no natural flowers were used for the reception. The opposite party promised to have the dinner ready at 7.00pm onwards.  But it was made ready only after 7.50pm that too, after the complainant made several requests.  The opposite party was also running a restaurant near the reception hall and the dinner was prepared in the restaurant only.  Before the opposite party started serving the dinner around 7.50 pm some of the guests who had visited earlier left without taking food. Persons engaged for the service of dinner were new and in-experienced and they were all youngsters.   Coffee and welcome drinks were served only for around 100 to 125 guests. As per the selected menu, after the guests have taken food they have to be served with ice cream and banana, but there was no cold storage near the dining hall and the waiter had to go to the nearby restaurant and collect the ice cream boxes containing 20 to 25 numbers.  After distributing the same the waiter again had to go to the restaurant and collect the ice cream boxes from the freezer and return to the hall to serve the same.  By the time some of guests who finished the dinner found the ice cream tray empty left the dining hall without taking ice cream. According to the calculation made by the Supervisor of the opposite party only 345 numbers of guests attended the function including the children.  This was mainly due to the lethargic attitude of the opposite party who failed to make the dinner ready in time and nearly 25 guests left the reception hall without taking the dinner. Complainant requested the opposite party to charge only for the actual number of guests who had attended the function i.e. 345 guests and requested to return a sum of Rs.23,375/- being the cost of the un-served food for 55 guests.  But the opposite party refused to return the same and informed that complainant that once the amount paid would not be refunded.  Complainant further requested to hand over the un-served food that was made ready for the remaining 55 persons to enable him to provide the same to any orphanage or other poor people which was also denied by the opposite party. The two restrooms provided were found water stagnated inside due to blockage in the drain pipe that was not removed. The act of opposite party proved was beyond doubt that service was deficient and also amounts to unfair trade practice which caused not only monetary loss to the complainant but also spoiling his name among his friends and relatives. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.30,125/- paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of payment till date of repayment and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

4. The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that they had been carrying on the hotel business for the past two decades in an excellent manner. Apart from that food quality and other facilities are being maintained in a high standard compared with other nearby halls and hotels. Complainant initially booked Mullai and Marutham halls on 06.04.2023 for his son’s marriage reception which was to be conducted on 09.07.2023.  The complainant has inspected the halls personally and satisfied with the facilities therein and thereafter booked the same.  Further he also ordered to prepare the dinner as per his choice of menu for 400 guests.  As the complainant felt that Mullai & Murutham halls were not sufficient to accommodate 400 guests he voluntarily booked another hall Kurinji and he paid a sum of Rs.15,750/- towards maintenance charges of the halls.  The amount was paid by him on 06.04.2023 and 04.07.2023 respectively. Complainant ordered to prepare menu for 400 guests as per menu chosen by him. All three halls booked by the complainant were perfectly ready at 5.00pm, on 09.07.2023 in all aspects to commence the function.  The dinner was also prepared for 400 guests as per menu.  Opposite party commenced to serve the welcome drinks and coffee to guests before 6.30pm as per the instructions given by the complainant.  Further the dinner was also made ready at 7.00pm as per the complainant’s wish. Opposite party employed well trained staffs to serve the dinner in buffet method to the guests in a professional manner.  None of the complainant’s guest including the complainant raised any sort of complaint or suggestion during the function either to the opposite party or to their staffs. Complainant himself has filled the guest comment forum provided by the opposite party at the end of the function and ticked the box as excellent in respect of food and service column and did not indicate anything about the deficiency of service therein. Dinner menu was fixed at Rs.425/- per plate irrespective of age of the guest.  The amount would not be returned in respect of un-served foods since the opposite party could not be blamed for less number of guests attending the function.  This fact has been clarified to the complainant at the time of booking and the same was also accepted.  Therefore the complainant has no right to seek any exemption of charges for the food taken by the children and un-served foods.  Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A9 were submitted. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and document marked as Ex.B1 was submitted.

Points for consideration:-

1)    Whether the alleged acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party has been successfully established by the complainant by admissible evidence?

2)    If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

6. Heard both learned counsels appearing for the complainant and the opposite party.

7. The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that from the date of booking until the function is over the opposite party has committed several acts of deficiency in service. It is submitted by him that he had paid dinner for 400 guests but the opposite party served food only for 345 guests and hence he sought for the refund of amount he had paid for the 55 guests amounting to Rs.23,375/-.  It is further argued by him that the toilet facilities provided to the guests was not clean so that the guests could not use it.  Further it is stated by him that due to continuous function in the opposite party’s hall the same was not cleaned properly at the appropriate time. Thus he argued that due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party the complainant’s name got spoiled among the friends and relatives for not organizing the function in a proper manner.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

8. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party denied the allegation by stating that when the complainant booked the party hall for 400 persons, food was prepared based on the booking and hence the amount for the un-served food could not be refunded back as per their terms and conditions.  Further it is contended by the learned counsel that the leftover food was not claimed by the complainant. Remarks given by the complainant at the time of the function was highlighted by the learned counsel to say that the complainant did not have any grievance over the arrangements made and has come out with the present complaint as an afterthought and sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

9. On perusal of the pleadings and material evidences we could find that as per Ex.A2 menu card it is found that there is no clause under the terms and conditions that the amount for food would be calculated on the basis of the number of guests who attended the function and consumed on that day.  Further, as per Ex.A5 it is seen that the complainant had booked with the opposite party for food for a total number of 400 persons and had paid the entire amount accordingly. It is to be seen that the other deficiencies alleged by the complainant such as artificial flower decorations, party hall not handed over at the appropriate time, toilets were not cleaned properly, serving people were not well trained etc., were not seems to have raised at that particular day. There is no proof to show that these allegations were raised to the Supervisor of the opposite party.  Above all we could see that vide Ex.B1 the complainant in the Guest Comment Form dated 09.07.2023 i.e., on the day of function has ticked that the food and service was excellent.  A column was also found for any specific comments however it was left blank.  Thus we could presume that the complainant was satisfied with the services rendered by the opposite party on that particular day.  If at all he was having any grievance he might have mentioned it in the Comment Form.  The said document was also not disputed by the complainant and also no proper explanation was given by him disputing it. In the said circumstances we hold that the allegation raised by the complainant against the opposite party was not substantiated by the complainant with sufficient evidence.  Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in the service rendered by them for the function hosted by the complainant.

Point No.2:-

10. As we have held above that the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, the complainant is not entitled any reliefs from the opposite party.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 25^th day of March 2024.

      -Sd-                                                      -Sd-                                                        -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                           PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

      -Sd-                                                        -Sd-                                                       -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                           PRESIDENT