Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 241.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 19.04.2022

                                                                    Decided on      : 13.07.2023

Ashok Wason age 61 years, son of Late Shri Daulat Ram resident of House No.172/24, Jagdish Colony, Rohtak.

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. Krishan Goyal son of Late Shri Ram Bilas Goel Owner of Hotel Ramaya, Opposite Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak.
2. M/s Payal Hospitality and Development, office at Hotel Ramaya, Opposite Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak through its Managing Partner Sahil Goyal son of Shri Krishan Goyal.

                                                                            ……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Ankur Dua, Advocate for complainant.

Smt. Lovina Singla, Advocate for opposite parties.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed their reply and has denied that complainant paid an amount of Rs.10000/- to the respondent no.1. It is matter of record that complainant paid an amount  of Rs.75000/- to the respondents through cheque. This advance amount was paid by the complainant to the respondents for the booking of caterers, floor decoration, DJ, religious purposes etc. It is submitted that respondents have received an amount of Rs.75000/- from the complainant and not Rs.85000/- as alleged by the complainant. It is denied that respondent had refused to open the gate for ingress of the gathering in the Hall situated at 4^th floor where the religious ceremonies to be performed. The respondent no.1 never cancelled the booking of the complainant. No assurance was given to the complainant to refund the amount. On the other hand, respondents suffered a huge loss due to act and conduct of the complainant as the respondent no.1 had paid the advance amount to the caterers, floor decorators, D.J.nights, Mandap decorators etc. and the respondents paid an amount of Rs.1.25 lac to the above mentioned individuals to make the event as success. The entire fault rests at the end of the complainant as the complainant suffered a colossal loss due to the unethical act of complainant by cancelling the booking at the last moment, when the entire bookings with caterers, decorators etc. have been finalized. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs..  

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, and closed his evidence on 02.02.2023. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 31.05.2023.

4.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspect of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case it is not disputed that as per copy of account detail of the complainant placed on record as Ex.C2, an amount of Rs.75000/- has been paid in favour of the opposite parties and this fact has been admitted by the opposite parties in their written statement. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, he also deposited an amount of Rs.10000/- as booking amount in advance to the opposite parties for the purpose of marriage function of his daughter which was fixed for 17.11.2020. The grievance of the complainant is that on 12.11.2020, when the complainant approached the respondents with regard to the arrangement to be made for the function of marriage of his daughter in the hotel, the respondents had refused to open the gate for ingress of the gathering in the Hall situated at 4^th floor where the religious ceremonies were to be performed. Hence the complainant was not in a position to solemnize the marriage function of his daughter and requested the respondents to cancel the booking and to refund the amount. But the amount has not been refunded to the complainant till date. To support the contention of complainant, an affidavit Ex.CW2/A has also been filed by one Amit s/o Sh.Satish Kumar. On the other hand, contention of the opposite parties is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The entire fault rests on the complainant as he caused a colossal loss to the respondent no.1 by cancelling the booking at the last moment. It is further  contended that opposite parties suffered a huge loss due to act and conduct of the complainant as the opposite party no.1 had paid the advance amount to the caterers, floor decorators, D.J.nights, Mandap decorators etc. and the opposite parties paid an amount of Rs.1.25 lac to the above mentioned individuals to make the event as success. But to prove its contention, no document regarding payment of amount to caterers, floor decorators, D.J.nights, Mandap decorators etc. has been placed on record by the opposite parties. Moreover, the opposite parties have submitted that complainant cancelled the booking at the last moment. In this regard it is observed that no person will be willing to cancel the booking at the last moment because he will have to do another arrangements immediately by spending more amount. As the opposite parties refused to open the gate for ingress of the gathering where the religious ceremonies were to be performed. Hence there was no option left with the complainant to cancel the booking.   As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of complainant. Regarding the booking amount of Rs.10000/-, complainant has not placed on record any receipt/document. Hence the complainant is entitled for only Rs.75000/-. However, the law cited by ld. counsel for the opposite parties III(1994)CPJ54(NC) titled as Mukta Kalyan Mandapam Vs. N.Radhakrishna & Anr. is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.                In  view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 & 2 to refund the alleged amount of Rs.75000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.04.2022 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

13.07.2023.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Vijender Singh, Member.