Karnataka

StateCommission

A/540/2014

The Lalit Ashok, Bangalore - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.M. Shetty - Opp.Party(s)

K. Prabhakar Rao

20 Oct 2023

ORDER

                                                                     Date of Filing : 15.04.2014

                                                                Date of Disposal : 20.10.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED :20.10.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.540/2014

 

1. The Lalit Ashok Bangalore  

    A Branch of Bharat Hotels Ltd.,

    Kumara Krupa High Grounds

    Bengaluru  - 560 001

    Rep. by its General Manager

 

2. Mrs. Jyotsna Suri

    Chair Person & MD of Bharat Hotels Ltd.,

    Barakhamba Avenue

    Connaught Place

    New Delhi – 110 001                                                   -  Appellants                

    (By Mr K Prabhakar Rao, Advocate)

 

                 -Versus-

    Mr K M Shetty

    S/o Mr Late H P Venkappa Shetty

    Aged about 63 years

    No.5, Ameya

    1^st Block, 1^st Main

    Koramangala

    Bengalruru - 560 034                                                              Respondent

    (By Mr Raghavendra S, Advocate)

                                                                                                 

   : ORDER :

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OPs 1 & 2, aggrieved by the Order dated 06.03.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint No.1381/2013 on the file of III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels on record.  Perused the Impugned Order, Grounds of Appeal and Lower Court Records.,,

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the records, allowed the Complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and to pay Rs.5 Lakhs as Compensation to the Complainant within 30 days of the Order.  In case of default, the OPs shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a on the said sum from the date of default, until actual payment.

4.       The allegation of the Complainant is that inspite of making full payment of a sum of Rs 16,12,093/- on time, for Booking of the entire ‘Lalit Gardens and Pool Side’ to OP1, for the purpose of celebrating the Reception of the dream marriage of their Daughter, in the evening pleasant weather, under the open sky and at poolside, which would take everyone into a heavenly mood, where, pleasant lights gets reflected on the pool water, soothing soft music playing at the background, lusty lawn to have seating arrangements & Dinner, giving a feel of serene atmosphere to see that the newly wed young couple enter into a new and a lifelong relationship, in a happy & memorable moment, in the presence of the elite invitees. However, the Complainant and his family members were thoroughly disappointed about her daughter’s dream of marriage totally vanished in thin air, when they found that the Pool was totally dry & without water and the OPs miserably failed to maintain the main attraction of a pool with full of water in a serene atmosphere in the pleasant evening weather. Further, when the issue was brought to the notice of the OP’s, their response was totally un-becoming of a 5 Star Hotel. Hence, the Complainant demanded compensation of 20% of the total amount paid by him from OPs for deficiency in service.

5.       The contention taken by the OPs is that ‘Lalith Gardens and Pool side area’ is only a name given to the Venue, which was facing garden area adjacent to the pool and there was no condition per se on the maintenance of the garden, nor the pool as per the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement dated 25^th September 2012. Their Technical team as part of their routine inspection of the Pool, observed that there was imbalance in the chemical level of the water present in the pool and the water in the pool was contaminated and keeping in view of the safety of the visitors, it was decided to drain the water in the pool.  Complainant had paid only for the use of the garden and not for the pool and he raised the objection only on 05.01.2013.

6.       Perusal of the records reveals that, it is not in dispute that Complainants had booked the ‘Lalit Gardens and Pool Side’ of OP1 for celebration of their Daughter’s Wedding Reception to be held on 02.01.2013 from 6 pm to 11 pm; entered into ‘Banquet Reservation Agreement’ on 25.09.2012 for Rs.16,12,093/-.  It is also not in dispute that the Receipt No.18232 dated 27.12.2012 discloses for having received payment of Rs.14,12,093/- vide cheque No.730144 dated 27.12.2012 and advance amount of Rs.2 lakhs vide cheque No.161176 dated 26.09.2012.  OP1 also admitted the payment of Rs.80,687/- for other expenses incurred by the Complainant.  Further, the OP would contend that there was heavy rain prior to the date of the Wedding Reception due to which the water in the pool got contaminated and hence, it was felt that it would be harmful to the Guests is not  acceptable.  OPs having failed to fill the pool with water could have intimated the Complainant regarding their inability and could have suggested for alternative arrangement, but he has miserably failed to do so.   Further, OP1 failure to keep up their promise for providing the facilities, as per the Agreement and the burden of proof is upon the OP1 to prove that the water in pool was contaminated & hence it was drained totally and in this context, he has not produced any cogent evidence. This Commission has also taken into consideration the fact that the Hotel of OP-1 is branded as a 5 Star Hotel, which automatically gets along with it the expectation of availability & providing of facilities of the highest order.    Further, we also took notice  of  the fact  that  the   Hotel  has charged  a whopping sum of Rs 16,12,093/- for a reception function of a duration of 5 Hrs, which, as per their own ‘Banquet Reservation Agreement’ i.e., the Document No.1 produced before District Forum is for all the facilities present in its entirety and their retaining the full amount without providing the full facilities supposed to be available and extended for use of their customers, certainly tantamount to Unfair Trade Practice.  Hence, the act of OP1 in not maintaining the water in the Pool definitely amounts to deficiency in service.  In the circumstances, the finding recorded by the District Forum is sustainable and same does not call for any interference.  Accordingly, Appeal is Dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.       The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

8.       Return the LCR forthwith to the District Commission.

 

9.       Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

Lady Member                  Judicial Member                         President

* s