Haryana

StateCommission

A/1085/2015

DEEPAK KHOSLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.C.ROYAL HOTEL - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

01 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                    

 

                                                First Appeal No.           1085 of 2015

                                                Date of Institution:       17.12.2015

                                                Date of Decision:         01.03.2016

 

 

Deepak Khosla son of late Sh. M.S. Khosla, resident of House No.5422/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

M/s K.C. Royal Hotel & SPA, now renamed Holiday Inn SPA, Sector 3, City Center, Panchkula, Haryana through its General Manager-cum-Banquet Manager.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                       

 

Argued by:                    Mr. Deepak Khosla, appellant in person

                             Mr. Amit Rana, Assistant General Manager

                             alongwith Mr. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate for the

                             respondent.       

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J,

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated November 06^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.

2.      Deepak Khosla-complainant booked the hotel of opposite party for August 14^th, 2014 to celebrate the marriage of his daughter. He paid Rs.3,25,000/- in advance to the opposite party.  The opposite party failed to provide proper services to the complainant at the time of marriage of his daughter.  After the marriage, the opposite party made telephonic calls on the mobile phone of his daughter by raising demand of Rs.25,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party. 

2.      The opposite party was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum. 

3.      The only dispute was with regard to the arrangements made by the opposite party.  Mr. Amit Rana, Assistant General Manager has placed on record Customer Feedback Form (photocopy A) appreciating the services rendered by the opposite party to the complainant.  The same is reproduced as under:-

 

          “                                                                  KC ROYAL PARK

                                                                             Panchkula

 

          All Staff need to be promoted and given more pay and incentives.

 

          Dear Guest,

         

          We are delighted to have you with us.  Would you please spare a few moments of your precious time to give us your valued feed back?

 

                                      Exceeded           Met                Did not meet

                                     Expectations    Expectations    Expectations

Hospitality		√
Ambience	√
Quality of Service	√
Quality of Food	√

         

          Any other special comments See very very good & I rate them + A i.e. Excellent.

         

          Name Specially Mr. Rawat & Mr. Girish

                    Deepak Khosla ‘IES’

 

          Company Name : Retd Director, Town Planning and Urban Development

         

          Address 5422/1, MHC, Manimajra

 

          E-mail deepakkhosla4862@gmail.com

                                                   @yahoo.com

          Birthday: ­20^th December Wedding Anniversary 4 in Oct.

 

          Guest’s Signature Sd/-                            Date 15.8.2014

 

K.C. ROYAL PARK

City Centre, Sector 3, Panchkula 134109, Haryana

Tel. : +911726633333, Fax : +911726633300”

 

4.      After perusing the aforementioned Forum (Annexure A), it cannot be said from any angle that there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The complainant himself filled and signed the Form.  He appreciated the hospitality and services of the opposite party. As such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.       

5.      The appeal is dismissed.

 

  

Announced 01.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK