BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BA3NGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to repay sum of Rs.4,19,994/- with 18% interest per annum from 24.07.2022 till realization, to pay sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the harassment, inconvenience and mental agony suffered by complainant, such other reliefs as this commission deems fit.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant filed this complaint that they had booked the resort of OP in Pondicherry for the wedding ceremony of complainant’s sister who is a resident of Canada and for the same reason complainants have been involved in the booking and coordinating with the personnel of OPs for the purpose of marriage to be held at the hotel of OPs. In view of the marriage they booked OPs resort in Pondicherry from 02.10.2022 to 04.10.2022 and had paid advance amount of Rs.4,19,994/- by way of online transaction on 24.07.2022, the same has been acknowledged by OPs and thereafter upon the receipt of the same OPs confirmed the booking of complainants and made reservation at the said resort for the above mentioned dates. Complainant stated that OPs assured that the reservation for wedding ceremony shall be  with the outcome received upon by mail between OPs and complainant’s.

3. Complainant further stated that upon receiving the confirmation from OPs and the advance payment, the invitation for the wedding was circulated to the friends and family and accordingly the preparations were started by the complainant’s for the ceremony to be held at the resort and met a staff personnel of the resort for finalizing the dishes for guest receiving to the wedding. Further to the utter shock and dismay of the complainant’s, the meals that were previously agreed upon was completely changed by OP and instead very basic meal was provided to the complainant’s. Further the cost was also revised by the representative of OP. Complainant sated that when the same was questioned with the OP representative, one of the representative of OP i.e. Mr. Deva threatened complainants that they will cancel the booking. Left with no option complainant had succumbed to demands of representative’s of OPs as they have already printed the invitation and circulated the same to the friends and relatives. On 08.08.2022 the OPs had assured the revised meal menu via E-mail with the complainants and again it is shock and surprise to the complainant’s that meals, menu and timing were not as per what was agreed on 07.08.2022. Further complainant approached OP representative on 09.08.2022, was in a rough manner and further told that they will not alter meal plan again. After all requests and lengthy discussion of complainant with representative of OP No.1 i.e. Mr. Rey tilak went in vain that shows OPs have failed to deliver to what was agreed upon and instead within making alteration as per their whims and fancies at the cost of complainant.

4. Complainant further stated that the representative of OP No.1 Mr. Jay Prakash Rasu on 10.08.2022 called the complainant on 10.08.2022 and informed them that they are cancelling the booking as they cannot fulfill the request of the complainant and also stated that they will initiating the refund of RS.4,19,994/-. The same will be credited to the complainant’s account within 30-45 days. Complainant stated that when the complainant insisted upon the representative of OP to communicate them through mail or any written communication, the representative of OP denied the same and instead insulted the complainant.

5. Complainant further stated that they requested OPs not to cancel the booking as the complainants already circulated the wedding invitation and further all the arrangements of wedding were made. All the requests of complainant went in vain as OPs never bothered to adhere the requests of the complainant. Complainant further stated that as soon as there was no written communication from OP, complainant will having faith in OPs, met the representatives of OP No.2 i.e. Mr. Jay Prakash Rasu and Miss Anu ilakkiya on 15.08.2022 and requested them not to cancel the booking, as already the tickets and other arrangements for the wedding has been done and cancellation would lead to financial loss and mental harassment and agony. OPs were adamant and did not here the request of complainant and went ahead and cancelled the bookings. On that stage OPs intimated complainants about the refund of advance amount paid by them will be credited within 30-45 days. Complainants had requested them to fast track the process, since they needed money badly to make alternative arrangements of wedding. Further till today the OPs have not refunded the advance amount.

6. Further stated that with the credit, they could manage to book another venue of wedding i.e. Ashoka Beach resort, Pondicherry and the wedding to plan on 03.10.2022 and 04.10.2022 due to the last minute booking the complainant had to under come lot of hardship and mental harassment caused by OPs and had to incur financial expenditure. In spite of repeated and processed follow ups OPs not interested to refund for money. Complainant caused legal notice dated 02.01.2023 by RPAD though it was complied with notice nor issued any reply to the said legal notice. Hence complainant approached this commission for the remedy to their grievance as prayed above.

7. Notice sent through RPAD was duly served on OPs No.1 and 2. OP No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsels and filed their statement of objection. OP No.1 in its version admitted that complainant has booked resort at Pondicherry for wedding ceremony by Simrajeet Kaur Alagh but OP No.1 also stated, doesn’t know the relation between complainant No.1 and Simranjeet Kaur Alagh. It also admitted that complainants booked the resort from 02.10.2022 to 04.10.2022 for the purpose of wedding and paid an advance amount of Rs.4,19,994/- by way of online transactions on 07.08.2022. Complainants visited OP No.1 not for finalizing dishes but for total change of dishes, chats and drinks. Therefore OP No.1 informed that the prices of extra dishes and high quality items for which the complainant changed to other dishes they demanded but complainant did not agreed to pay more price for changed dishes and items, OP No.1 denies that Mr. Deva threatened complainant, they will cancel the bookings. When the complainants again requested to change the menu through E-mail and keep on changing the items in the menu , complainants also demanded so may free complementary items along with breakfast, lunch and dinner, OP No.1 did not agree to change the items, once the order is placed. On that grounds complainants said that they are agreeing to cancel the booking, the same has communicated by E-mail of complainant No.2. OP No.1 denied that the complainant has requested not to cancel the booking, since they have distributed the wedding cards, instead complainants in high pitch voice said that they have an alternative arrangements and shouted to cancel the booking. OP No.1 alleged about the alternative resort was under negotiation for wedding in OP No.1. On that reason complainants cancelled the booking in OP No.1 and initially agreeing to their convenience, is not the last minute effort to book other resort, they had intention to change the place of marriage.

8. Accordingly complainants requested that advance amount paid may be adjusted between the last anniversary in the same resorts with the OP No.1, was informed over phone. Thereafter complainant have sent mails to refund the amount, since the father of OP No.1, managing director was not well and later his father Mr. Raju was passed away on 09.08.2023, OP No.1 did not able to communicate with the complainants. By denying the allegations made by complainant, OP No.1 stated that there is deficiency of service caused by OP No.1,hence they are not liable to pay 18% p.a. interest and Rs.20,00,000/- compensation as they prayed. Therefore OP No.1 prays this commission to dismiss the complainant against OPs with exemplary costs.

9. OP No.2 denies the allegations of the complainant made in the complaint and stated that complainants has filed with malafide intention to make monitery benefit out of it. OP No.2 stated that it was neither operating the hotel Lagoon De Pondy nor was responsible for any deficiency as alleged in the complainant. OP No.2 is wrongly made as party in this present case. OP No.2 further stated that prior to 01.03.2023 Lagoon Sarovar premium resort which is in the present case was not functional. The existing entity was Lagoon De Pondy was neither under the control of OP No.2 nor managed by it. Since the complainants have booked the resort for the period 02.10.2022 to 04.10.2022, is prior to that date. OP No.2 started operation OP NO.1 hotel only from 01.03.2023 which was also the opening day of OP No.1. Complainant had not paid consideration whatsoever to the OP No.2. OP No.1 in fact the complainant has produced in the documents No.1 clearly shows that payment was made in Lagoon De Pondy and not to Lagoon Sarovar premium resort. Further OP No.2 stated that OP NO.1 started reporting Lagoon De Pondy under brand name of Lagoon Sarovar premium resort only from 01.03.2023. OP No.2 clarified here on 07.08.2022 complainant have not visited resort owner by OP No.2 i.e. Lagoon Sarovar premium resort and further clarified that on 08.08.2022, complainant have not received any revised mail menu from any resort owned by or arranged by OP No.2. Therefore the question of any cancellation or refund being due to the complainant from OP No.2 i.e. Lagoon Sarovar premium resort does not arise. OP No.1 had no dealings whatever with the complainants, since there is no privity of contract between they and complainants. Hence the case is bad on facts and law on the merits being disposed with exemplary costs. Subsequently, OP No.2 filed additional version, objecting the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

10. After the stage of version complainant No.2 adduced affidavit evidence along with 10 supporting documents and certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The documents are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Subsequently filed Ex.P.10(a) to 10 (d). One R. Jayaprakash, managing director of OP NO.1 company filed his affidavit evidence with certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act with 6 document, which are marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7.

11. One Chandan Pany, the sales manager of OP No.2 is authorized to lead evidence on behalf of OP No.2, were filed affidavit evidences with one documents including certificate U/S 65B which are marked as Ex.R.7.

12. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

3. What order?

13.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                      REASONS

14. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

15. The OP No.2 taken contention of maintainability on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of OP NO.1&2 does not fall under the jurisdiction of this commission. In our considered view, complainant’s resides in Bangalore and filed before the Bangalore Urban District Commission, is right jurisdiction as per Section 34(2) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is not disputed that complainant has booked the OP resort for the wedding of her sister from 02.10.2022 to 04.10.2022 by paying Rs.4,19,994/- on 24.07.2022 by online transfer of amount to OP, which is at Ex.P.1. The said amount was received by OP No.1 acknowledged through E-mail, which is at Ex.P.2. Complainant has produced wedding invitation scheduled on 4.10.2022 in which the venue of marriage was mentioned as Lagoon De Pondy Resort, Pondicherry, which is at Ex.P.3(a). By perusing the allegations against OPs in the complaint and the version of OPs, shows discrepancy in the statement made by both parties. Complainant alleged that due to non-cooperation and non-obliging attitude of OP No.1 has forced them to book another resort for the wedding purpose. Before that, complainant stated in the complaint that OP itself has intimated to the complainant about the cancellation of booking. OP made them to book another resort, though they are not in position to cancel or postpone the wedding event. Since they have already circulated the wedding cards to their friends and relatives. Complainant also stated that OPs made complainant to book instantly an another resort, caused financial loss and mental agony as they alleged. OP No.1 denies all such allegations against them. Their versions are totally against the complainant that complainant’s keep on changing the menu and they demanded a complementary/free snacks some items in the dinner and lunch which were not agreed at the time of booking and complainants often visited resort and started changing their meals menu, made them to behave rude. OPs alleged that complainant themselves cancelled the booking since they have already made their efforts to book another alternative venue for wedding event. For that purpose complainant cancelled the booking with OPs and organized their wedding event at another resort named the Ashoka Beach Resort, Pondicherry.

16. Considering the statements made by both parties which totally contradictory, here the question arised only with regard to the non refund of the amount paid as advance towards booking of resort for the wedding event, complainants themselves stated that OPs cancelled the booking unilaterally and initiated the refund of Rs.4,19,994/- will be credited to the account of the complainant within 30-45 days. When the same has not credited to the complainants account, complainant filed this complaint for refund of money and interest for the delay caused by OPs.

17. OP No.1 in his version stated that the complainant has sent E-mails for the refund of the same after the cancellation of the booking, in the mean time father of OP No.1 who is managing director was not well and hospitalized for long time, passed away on 09.08.2023. On that reason, OP No.1 was not in position to communicate to the complainants with regard to the refund of the advance money.

18. Both the parties alleged mutually about the incident happened prior to cancellation of booking but with regard to their statements we observed the discrepancy for the reason of cancellation on booking on which the deficiency of service is discussed. Considering the statement of OP No.1 in its version, about the illness and death of his father delayed him to transfer the money to the account of the complainant, though he has agreed for refund of money within 32 to 45 days. OP No.1 could have transfer the amount of Rs.4,19,994/-, immediately either after receiving legal notice dated 02.01.2023 or after receiving the notice from commission, shows his genuine attitude towards his customers, but OP No.1 and 2 has not done so, not refunded the amount till this day.

19. It is pertinent to note that OP No.2 has taken contention that the complainant has made falsely as a party to this case on the ground that complainant has entered into the agreement only with OP No.1. After perusing the documents, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10 (A) and Ex.P.10 (B) shows OP No.1 & 2 are one and the same. Ex.P.10 B clearly discloses that OP No.1 is one of the 100^th branch hotel of OP No.2, opened in the month of September 2022. As per the website and the social media platform since May 2022, the same has displayed. With all these OPs only evading from their liability of repaying the advance amount and the deficiency for service caused from their side by taking such contention, which is meaningless. The reason for cancellation of booking is immaterial here, since OP No.1 & 2 admitted that complainants have booked and paid Rs.4,19,994/- and agreed to refund the amount within 35-40 days but not refunded it yet, is definitely a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1&2. It definitely caused financial difficulty and inconvenience for organizing wedding at different venue. When the complainant has not conducted event in OP’s place and not utilized any service from them, whether the cancellation is made by OP on its own or not, is not proved. If it is so, might cause lot of inconvenience and shock to complainant. Neither complainant and nor OP’s proved the allegation against each other, made in their pleadings about the reason for cancellation. OP No.1&2 are liable to refund Rs.4,19,994/- with interest and compensation. Complainant claimed Rs.20,00,000/- towards harassment, inconvenience and mental agony caused due to the act of OPs seems to be exorbitant and they also claimed 18% interest p.a. on Rs.4,19,994/- is also seems to be exorbitant. Hence OPs are liable to pay 10% p.a. on Rs.4,19,994/- and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony, suffered by the complainant. OP No.1&2 made complainant’s to approach this commission and incur money on filing this complaint, hence OPs are also liable to pay cost of litigation of a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. On the above reasons we answer Point No.1 & 2 accordingly.

20. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

                                   ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OPs No.1&2 are jointly and severally liable refund Rs.4,19,994/- with 10% interest p.a. to the complainant from 24.07.2022 till realization.
3. OPs No.1&2 are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on ward amount from the date of order till realization.
4. Furnish the copies of the order and return the extra copies of pleadings and documents to the parties, with no cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th day of March, 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.2;