Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/32

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyatt Regency - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Aggarwal

03 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:32 dated19.01.2021.                                                  Date of decision: 03.02.2023.

 

Satish Kumar aged 57 years son of Shri Manohar Lal, resident of Bagh wali Gali, Ludhiana (Mobile No.94173-00504, 94172-25502).                                                                                                                     .…Complainant

                                                Versus

Hyatt Regency, Near M.B.D. Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager.

                                                                                      ....Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Hemant Kalia, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the marriage of daughter of complainant namely Swati Gupta was fixed with Hardik Windlass for 25.08.2020. The groom was on training in Germany and he had to come from Germany for the marriage. The complainant booked hotel of opposite party and paid advance booking of Rs.80,000/- to opposite party i.e. Rs.40,000/- through debit card against receipt No.13556 dated 08.03.2020 and Rs.40,000/- deposited in Punjab National Bank, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana on 09.03.2020 through NEFT. The complainant stated that due to outbreak of COVID-19/Corona Virus, international travel restrictions were imposed and the groom was unable to travel from Germany to India for marriage and he had to quarantined for a period of at least two weeks as per the guidelines. Even due to restriction, limited number of people were allowed to attend wedding ceremony due to imposition of lockdown/curfew restrictions by Indian Govt., Punjab Govt. and competent authorities of Ludhiana. Moreover, the wedding was planned in night and curfew restriction would not have been made it possible and due to spread of pandemic, social contact was limited to avoid gathering. The complainant further stated that he contacted the sales associate (Riju Sharma) of the opposite party in the end of July to tell her about the complainant’s concerns who told that the complainant can cancel the venue and 100% refund of advance amount would be processed within 15-20 days. She also asked the complainant to put the cancellation request through email as the hotel was closed and no staff will be present there. The complainant sent the cancellation email on 05.08.2020. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the sales associate number of times but every time he was told that refund request would be processed by the end of next month. The complainant followed  up with Riju  Sharma again in the last week of November 2020and was put in touch with Mr. Mathur, Associate Director, sales of the hotel who refused to refund and instead asked to use this as a credit for the various facilities in the hotel. Said Mr. Matur also refused to provide the refusal of refund request in writing or via email rather misbehaved with the complainant by using insulting language and remarks for the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which has caused physical and mental pain, agony, harassment, humiliation and depression to the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice dated 12.12.2020 upon opposite party through counsel Sh. S. Kumar, Advocate calling upon the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.80,000/- and pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- but to no effect. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has sought direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.80,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement by assailing the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint and lack of cause of action.

                   On merits, the opposite party admitted the receipt of advance amount of Rs.80,000/- for marriage of daughter of the complainant. The opposite party further admitted some restrictions for wedding ceremonies. However, the opposite parties denied the factum of night curfew during the time of the function and wedding. Moreover, the wedding were allowed with restrictions considering the COVID-19, which was circulated through medical and vernaculars as such, the marriage could be performed during that period within the framework granted by the government but the complainant due to his own convenience cancelled the said function causing loss to the opposite party. The opposite party further alleged that the hotel authorities after considering the request of the complainant conveyed him that total refund of advance money is not possible and he can use that amount as a credit for various facilities of the hotel. Even Sh. Divya Mathur politely informed the complainant that booking was not for the lockdown period and there was no written signed agreement between the parties. Even instead of refund they will be able to give an alternative of credit shell of the same amount by virtue of which he can enjoy different facilities of the hotel and can also use that amount for any future function. The opposite party further alleged that at that time the complainant agreed to these offers but later on threatened that he is an influential person and will teach a lesson to them and used very insulting and filthy language. The opposite party has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and controverting those mentioned in the written statement.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of deposit receipt of Rs.40,000/-, Ex. C2 is the copy of receipt, Ex. C3 is the account statement of the complainant, Ex. C4 and Ex. C5 are the copies of emails, Ex. C6 is the legal notice dated 12.12.2020, Ex. C7 is the postal receipt and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Rohit Srivastav, General Manager, affidavit Ex. RB of Sh. Divya Mathur, Associate Director (Sales) of the opposite party along with documents Ex. OP1 is the copy of resolution dated 27.08.2020, Ex. OP2 is the copy of his Aadhar card, Ex. OP-2/1 agreement dated 13.07.2020, Ex. OP-2/2 is the copy of Aadhar card f Sh. Divya Mathur, Ex. OP-2/3 is the copy of I card of Sh. Divy Mathur and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, rejoinder, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the opposite party.          

6.                It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant booked the hotel of the opposite party for 25.08.2020 for solemnizing the marriage of her daughter namely Swati Gupta and paid Rs.80,000/- in advance to the opposite party. Due to outbreak of COVID-19/Corona Virus, the Central Government as well as State Government and the competent authorities issued the guidelines/restrictions to prevent and control the spread of COVID-19. Since the gathering in social functions and wedding ceremony was restricted due to prevalence of aforesaid conditions, the complainant left with no option to cancel the scheduled program of marriage of her daughter.

7.                The complainant remained in touch with the representatives of the opposite party and apprised them regarding cancellation of the marriage and requested for refund of the amount given in advance. Perusal of email Ex. C4 dated 05.08.2020 shows that the request was made by the complainant about 20 days earlier to the date of function. Admittedly, no function was held on the day fixed for marriage due to COVID restrictions. Consequently having advance intimation with regard to the request of cancellation by the complainant, the opposite party must not have mobilized its resources for making arrangements for the function. Even the opposite party is silent in this regard in the written statement as well as in the affidavit tendered in evidence. Instead of refunding the amount to the complainant, the opposite party gave offer to the complainant for alternative of credit shell so that the complainant can utilize the amount for future functions. This shows that nowhere throughout the proceedings of the complaint, the opposite party has denied the receipt of the amount in advance. No plausible explanation has been offered for not acceding to the request of the complainant for refunding the amount. The opposite party has unjustly retained the amount and the act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and as such, opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and to refund the amount of Rs.80,000/- along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till date of actual payment.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite party shall refund the amount of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till date of actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a compensation of  Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Satish Kumar Vs Hyatt Regency                                      CC/21/32

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Hemant Kalia, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite party shall refund the amount of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till date of actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a compensation of  Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.