Orissa

Cuttak

CC/50/2015

Sri Om Prakash Kandoi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hotel Blue Lagoon - Opp.Party(s)

S Lal

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

                                                                                    C.C No.50/2015

 

     Sri Om Prakash Kandoi,

  Permanent  Res. at-141A,

     Gnanagiri Road,Coronation Colony,

     Sivakasi,Tamilnadu.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

 

                                          

1.            Hotel Blue Lagoon,Near Sunshine field,

P.S:Purighat,PO:Chandini Chowk,Cuttack.

 

2.            The Director,

Hotel Blue Lagoon,Near Sunshine field,

P.S:Purighat,PO:Chandini Chowk,Cuttack.                                            … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   29.04.2015

Date of Order: 08.01.2018

 

For the complainant:                      Mr. Sumit Lal,Adv. & Associates.

For the  O.Ps.             :                    Sri H.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                The complainant having attributed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the O.Ps has filed this case seeking appropriate relief against them in terms of his prayer in the complaint petition.

1. The sequence of the events leading to institution of this case in short is that the complainant hails from the district of Sibakasi in the State of Tamil Nadu.  The marriage of his son A.S.Kandoi was scheduled to be held at Cuttack on 6^th December,14.  For that purpose Mrs. Nisha Kandoi, the daughter of the complainant booked 3 to 5 rooms on 5^th December,2014 and 6 to 8 rooms on 6^th December,2014 for occupation of his guests in Blue Lagoon hotel situated at Cuttack belonging to the O.P.  The complainant had also paid an advance of Rs.5000/- to the O.Ps through Internet banking.  The complainant had intimated this fact of making advance payment for occupation of the rooms in the hotel on the scheduled date to the O.P. vide E.Mail dt.12.11.14.  The copy of the marriage invitation card of his son has been filed and marked as annexure-1.  Copy of the intimation of reservation of rooms in the said hotel which has been intimated to the O.Ps has been filed and marked as Annexure-2.  The O.Ps have confirmed the fact of reservation of such rooms as per the request of the complainant and acknowledged to have received the advance of Rs.5000/- by  E.Mail dt.14.11.14.  Annexure-3 is the copy of such E.Mail dt.14.11.14.

On 4.12.14 the complainant had visited the hotel Blue Lagoon of the O.P to see the preparations/arrangements made by them.  But O.P.2 informed the complainant that only two rooms could be spared to him for accommodation of his guest and was reluctant to provide more rooms as per his request, made earlier.  On the same date the daughter of the complainant protested against such negligent and unethical practice followed by the O.Ps but to no response.  The complainant had undergone mental hardship and harassment because of deficient service provided to him by the O.Ps for accommodation of his guest in the eve of the marriage of his son.  He moved from pillar to post to find out accommodation for his guests in other hotels in the city.  Annexure-4 is the copy of the E.Mail dt.4.12.14 sent to the O.Ps by the daughter of the complainant ventilating her grievances.

On 7.1.15 the complainant sent a legal notice through his advocate to the O.Ps demanding refund of his advance as well as payment of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to him.  Annexure-5 is the copy of the said legal notice dt.7.1.15.  On 17.1.15 the O.P.2 sent reply to the aforesaid legal notice through his advocate to the complainant.  In his reply O.P.2 has taken some evasive stand to deny the request of the complainant.  Annexure-6 is the copy of the said reply of O.P.2 sent through his advocate.  The advocate of the complainant again replied on 3.2.15 to the aforesaid letter of the O.P and further refuted the contention of the O.P. in toto.   Copy of the said letter dt.3.2.15 of the advocate of the complainant has been filed and marked as Annexure-7.

It is further stated that the O.ps are found grossly deficient in rendering service to the complainant and also adopting unfair trade practice as stated above. As such it is prayed that they may be directed to refund the advance booking amount of Rs.5000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.2 lakhs together with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- and cost of adjournments @ Rs.500/- each time to the complainant in the interest of justice.

2. The O.Ps entered appearance and filed written version of their case.  Interalia it is stated that the case in the present form as filed in this court is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to file the case. The case also suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary and proper parties.  The description of the O.Ps in the cause title of the case is not correct and the case is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.  It is stated that the O.P.1 is a hotel which does not have any legal existence and O.P.2 is not the director of the said hotel There is also no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties since the booking of the room was for commercial purpose.  The transaction between the parties will at best fall within the domain of contingent contract and not under C.P.Act, as such the case is not maintainable.
3. The specific stand taken by the O.Ps is that there was confirmation of the booking of rooms by the complainant for 2 days as stated above but the number of rooms as claimed by the complainant has not been confirmed.  Since hotel Blue Lagoon is a small hotel having limited number of rooms, it is not possible to fulfill the demand of the complainant that too in a marriage season.  All other facts which have not been admitted in the written version are deemed to have been denied by the O.Ps.  As such it is prayed that the present case being devoid of merit maybe dismissed in limini.
4. We have carefully gone through the case records and heard the learned counsels from both the sides at length.

It is an admitted fact that the complainant has reserved some rooms in Blue Lagoon Hotel, Cuttack for occupation of his guests on 5.12.14 and6.12.14 on the occasion of the marriage of his son.  What is disputed is the number of rooms booked by the complainant.  According to the complainant he has booked 3 to 5 rooms in the said hotel for accommodation on 5.12.14 and 6 to 8 rooms on 6.12.14.  For this purpose special request has been made to the O.Ps vide his E.Mail dt.12.11.14.  The copy of the said E.Mail has been filed and marked as Annexure-2.  Quite contrary to it, the O.Ps has taken the specific stand that there was no confirmation of the booking of number of rooms as per the request of the complainant for the aforesaid two days, although booking of such rooms as per his request has been confirmed.  The learned counsel for the O.P has further submitted that on 14.12.14 when the complainant had visited the said hotel, O.P.2 has told him that two rooms could be immediately spared for the occupation of the guest of the complainant and one more room could be provided to them at about 10 A.M. on 5.12.14 after the persons who had occupied that room made it vacant. The further submission of the learned counsel for the O.P is that Blue Lagoon hotel is a small hotel having limited number of rooms; as such it was not possible on the part of the O.Ps to fulfill the demand of the complainant to spare more number of rooms as per his request.

Annexure-2 clearly reveals that the complainant had requested for advance booking of 3 to 5 deluxe double bed rooms on 5.12.14 and 6 to 8 deluxe double bed rooms on 6.12.14.  The cost of each room as agreed upon between the parties was Rs.1600/- per night which would include tea, coffee and complementary drink and it would exclude breakfast.  On such terms and conditions, the complainant has paid an advance of Rs.5000/- to the O.P to his account City Trade Arcade Pvt. Ltd. No.911020000499740.  This fact of reservation as well as payment of advance of Rs.5000/- by the complainant has been clearly  confirmed by the O.P vide their E.Mail dt.14.11.14 which has been marked as Annexure-3.It is contended in Annexure-3 as follows:

“Thanking you for choosing our hotel.  Here we are conforming your booking as per your mail.  We have received the amount deposited by you”.

Annexure-3 clearly reveals that rooms as per the request of the complainant vide Annexure-2 has been booked as per his request and the fact that advance amount deposited by the complainant which have been received by the O.P.  So the submission advanced by the learned advocate for the O.P that there was no confirmation of number of rooms booked by the complainant, is materially inconsistent with Annexure-3.  When the booking of rooms in the hotel was confirmed as per the request of the complainant without any condition, it is held that the number of rooms as requested has impliedly been confirmed by the O.P.  In such circumstances, failure of the O.P to provide number of rooms as confirmed, on the date fixed would certainly make them liable for deficiency in service.   That apart, when the number of confirmed rooms booked earlier has not been made available to the complainant on the date fixed, no doubt it would cause untold miseries and much hardship and harassment to the complainant to find out instant accommodation in any other hotel in Cuttack city especially in a marriage season.  This practice is also tantamount to unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

5. The learned advocate for the O.P has interalia submitted that there is no correct description of the O.Ps as per the cause list and there is no director working in the hotel Blue Lagoon which is neither a farm nor a company having legal entity.  According to him since the proper parties have been not added in this case as O.Ps by the complainant, the case is liable to be dismissed.  Annexure-6 is the reply of the learned counsel of the O.Ps to the legal notice dt.7.1.15 sent by the advocate for the complainant.    In Annexure-6 it is clearly written that the reply has been given on behalf of the director of hotel Blue Lagoon through his advocate.  Therefore the submission of the learned advocate for the O.P that designation director is not applied to a person who is in-charge of the management of the hotel is not acceptable in view of the contentions of Anenxure-6 stated above.  It cannot therefore be stated that the case suffers from any mis-joinder or non-joinder of the parties.
6. Further contention of the learned advocate for the O.Ps is that the complainant is not a consumer and the transactions between the parties in this case squarely falls within the domain of Contract Act and as such the case is not legally tenable before this authority.  As rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant that the rooms were booked by the complainant for occupation of his guest on the occasion of marriage ceremony of his son at Cuttack.  By no stretch of imagination it can be held that reservation of the above rooms was meant for any commercial purpose.  That apart, law is well settled that the C.P.Act provides an additional remedy  not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.  In that view of the matter it can be held that the dispute raised by the complainant falls within the scope and ambit of C.P.Act and needs determination by this authority.
7. Having regard to the discussion made in the fore going paragraphs, it is held that the O.Ps are found rendering deficient service to the complainant as well as following unfair trade practice in their business.  Hence ordered;

 

 

 

ORDER

The case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps.  They are directed to refund advance amount of Rs.5000/- received from the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to him together with Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

In the fact and circumstances of this case, the prayer of the complainant for cost on each adjournment to be awarded to him is not acceptable.  This order shall take effect within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 8^th    day of January,2018 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                         President.

                                                                                                                  (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                           Member.

 

                                                                                                                  (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)