Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/654/2021

Kuldip Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hotel Mountview, Through its General Manager. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Amarbir Dhaliwal

15 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	654/2021
Date of Institution	:	30.09.2021
Date of Decision	:	15.04.2024

 

                                 

                    

Sh. Kuldip Jain son of Iqbal Singh Jain, Haryana Human Rights Commission, Nirman Sadan, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Versus

1.    Hotel Mountview, through its General Manager Address:-      Hotel Mountview, Sector 10, Chandigarh, U.T 160011

2.    Chandigarh Industrial & Tourism Development Corporation Limited, through its Chairman/ Managing Director, Regd. Office: SCO 121-122, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh (U.T)-160 017.

….Opposite Parties

      

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Amarbir Dhaliwal, Counsel for the complainant Sh.Arjun Dev, Counse for the OPs.

      

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading therein that he booked the Hotel Mount View for hosting his son's ring ceremony lunch for 27.08.2020 by depositing Rs.25,000/- as booking amount vide receipt dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure C-1) and the said booking amount was assured to be refundable only if he wishes to cancel due to any unforeseen circumstances. The grandfather of the bride was diagnosed with COVID-19 on 15.08.2020 (Annexure C-2) and therefore, the complainant had postponed the event and accordingly made a request to the OPs vide e-mail dated 13.10.2020 to refund his deposited money but the matter was delayed by the OPs on one pretext or another. The DGM HMV approved the refund vide noting dated 26.10.2020 but the same disapproved by the MA (HO). It has been alleged that the same shows the high headedness and the arbitrary attitude of the management of the OPs. Instead of refunding the deposited money, the OPs have forced complainant to avail the credit note for the same amount to be retained for future date, which amounts to deficiency in service as the occasion for which the hotel was booked could not be celebrated due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Complainant.  It has been averred that the OPs have failed to refund the booking amount despite his repeated requests and service of the legal notice dated 06.09.2021. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund the booking amount along with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.       
2.        After service of notice, the OPs filed their written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case regarding the booking of the banquet by the complainant for 27.08.2020, it has further been stated that no refund will be given if booking is cancelled less than 15 days prior to the date of function as per the guest guidelines. Since, the complainant had sought cancellation of function by giving notice of less than 15 days, therefore, no refund was admissible.  It has further been stated that complainant instead of straightaway cancelling the function, in a very calculated and clandestine manner made a request vide e-mail dated 18.08.2020  to treat the said function cancelled and postponed for some future date, which shall be communicated to the Hotel well in time. In order to accommodate the complainant, the OPs accepted the request for postponement of the function so that the advance amount is allowed to be adjusted in the function to be conducted on a postponed date till further information. It has further been stated that thereafter the Banquet Hall (Confluence at 1st Floor of Hotel) of OP-1 could not be re-booked for 27.08.2020 by any other party on or after 18.08.2020 and as such remained vacant on 27.08.2020 and therefore, due to cancellation of Banquet booked for 27.08.2020, OP-1/Hotel had suffered huge financial loss.  It has further been stated that instead of availing the facility on the postponed date as per his request dated 18.08.2020, the complainant made request dated 13.10.2020 to refund the booking amount.  However, as per the Refund Policy, the refund could have been made, had the complainant got the banquet cancelled with prior notice of more than 15 days of the actual date of function. It has further been stated that the legal notice was duly replied vide reply dated 30.09.2021. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.        The complainant filed replication to the written reply of the OPs and controverted their stand and reiterating his own.
4.        Parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.        We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.
6.        From the perusal of the documentary evidence and submission of the parties, it is observed that the complainant had booked the Hotel Mount View for solemnizing the ring ceremony of his son for 27.08.2020 by depositing Rs.25,000/- as booking amount vide receipt dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure C-1). Since the grandfather of the bride was diagnosed to be corona positive before the function and, therefore, the complainant had to postpone the event and subsequently he made a request to the OPs vide e-mail dated 13.10.2020 for refund of the booking amount but the same was rejected.  Pertinently, the DGM HMV had also approved the refund case of the complainant vide noting dated 26.10.2020 as a special case but the same was disapproved by the MA (HO).
7.        There is no dispute that the complainant had to cancel the booking of the banquet hall of the OPs due to the fact that the grandfather of the bride diagnosed to be corona positive, which was certainly beyond the control of the complainant.  Moreover, celebration of function may lead to spread of corona virus among society especially when the family member of host was diagnosed with “covid positive’ duly proved by Medical Report dated 15.08.2020 as Annexure C-2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the forfeiture of the booking amount by the OPs is not just and fair especially when no services were rendered by the OPs to the complainant.  Thus, the forfeiture of the booking amount tantamounts not only to deficiency in service but also adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
8.        In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed against the OPs and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the booking amount i.e. Rs.25,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. after 30 days from the date of receipt of the request for its refund till the date of its actual realization.
9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
10.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
11.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 15.04.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER