Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/240/2016

Swarn Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gitish Bhardwaj

20 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/240/2016
Date of Institution	:	07/04/2016
Date of Decision	:	20/07/2017

Swarn Singh son of Sh. Narinder Singh Tiwana, permanent resident of village Madhopur, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib currently residing at House No.787, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., Mahindra Towers, 2^nd Floor, 17/18, Patullos Road, Chennai through its authorised representative.

2.     Branch Manager, Club Mahindra Holidays Branch Office : 504, Block-A, 5^th Floor, Elante Office Suits, Plot no.178-178/A, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

3.     Emerald Palms, Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., Pedda Uttor Doxi, Varca Salcete, Goa-403721 through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gitish Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Jasmeet Singh Bhatia, Counsel for OPs

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant became a member of the OP-club in the year 2014.  The complainant booked his holidays from OP-2 from 19^th to 21^st January, 2016 at Emerald Palms, Goa.  As per the scheduled programme, the complainant alongwith his family checked in on 19.1.2016 and he was given room No.615.  As the AC of the said room was not working, therefore, on complainant’s request he was given room No.614.  On the next morning the complainant tried to find out his Iphone 6 and came to know that he forgot the same in room No.615.  The complainant immediately contacted the reception and narrated the incident.  The complainant also immediately reported a DDR at Police Station Colva. The police also searched the room and luggage of the complainant and enquiry was also made from the two housekeeping boys who had cleaned the room.  The complainant also gave information to the resort with regard to the loss of the phone, but, to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs in their written statement have not disputed the factual matrix.  However, it has been averred that the complainant is alleging theft of his mobile phone without any cogent proof which cannot be countenanced.  It has been stated that it was the duty of the complainant to take care of his luggage and belongings and make sure that all items got transferred to the new room while shifting despite the fact that the duty staff of the resort assisted the complainant to transfer the luggage. The representatives of the OP company extended all cooperation to the complainant as also extended support to the police with regard to the enquiry. Hence no lability of any sort could be fastened on to the OP company. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Replication was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The main grouse of the complainant is that he lost his Iphone 6 mobile phone in the premises of OP-3 when he went there to enjoy his family trip. Annexure C-2 is a copy of the DDR lodged at Police Station Colva on 20.1.2016.  It has been alleged that the holidays were planned at the assurance of the OPs who promised to provide best environment during the holiday period, but, due to the incident of loss of the Iphone 6 of the complainant, the emotions of the complainant as well as his family were effected and till date no information has been provided to the complainant as to what has been done to trace his handset in question.
7.         The stand taken by the OPs is that it was the duty of the complainant only to take care of his luggage and belongings and for that purpose he already gave an undertaking over Annexure R-1/2 for taking responsibility of all his valuable items during his stay at the resort of the OPs.
8.         After going through the complaint and the evidence on record, it is admitted fact by the OPs that they issued one room to the complainant with faulty AC which was not working properly.  We are of the opinion that when the trip was pre-scheduled and not all of a sudden, it was the duty of the OPs, being service providers, to provide a proper room to the complainant and his family members primarily with proper working AC as the family was on a holiday.
9.         Secondly, in their written arguments the OPs themselves have pointed out that the Iphone has a unique feature which if lost can be tracked easily through computer in this techno savvy world, and so it is not that simple to lose an Iphone.  We feel that as the complainant was not at his home town, but, was enjoying holidays at the premises of the OPs, the OPs were duty bound to provide him with such tracking system as suggested by them. 
10.         The third allegation by the OPs is with regard to the declaration of the complainant over Annexure R-1/2.  We feel that this declaration by the complainant does not exempt the OPs from their own negligence or the negligence of their employees or agents.  The OPs have failed to perform their duty and they misconducted by not taking any action to prevent the aforesaid incident at their premises.  We are of the view that it is the duty of the OPs only to engage faithful and honest employees and if any employee of the OPs, who is working as an agent of the OPs commits any wrong act, then the OPs are vicariously liable for such acts.
11.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.  The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

(i)     To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical pain and inconvenience caused to him;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 

12.         This order be complied with by OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
20/07/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member