DATE OF HEARING:14.08.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCE: 21.09.2023
PER: SHRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
- To receive the advance amount along with the excess amount from the opposite party, the complainant filed this complaint under Sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and leveled allegations against the Opposite party for deficient services and unfair trade practices. Therefore, the complainant sought the following reliefs –
- For refund of the advance amount paid of Rs.8,000/- and excess payment made Rs.10,080/-, in total Rs.18,080/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Eighty) only to the complainant;
- For payment of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only towards the compensation for harassment and mental agony;
- For payment of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the litigation;
- Pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant has booked 12 numbers of rooms for his guests bearing Nos.:105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 103, 104, 210, 208, 209, 212, and 112 for his Son’s marriage which was to be held on 21.11.2021. The said rooms were booked on 02.08.2021 at the rate of Rs.2200/- per day with 24 24-hour checkout facility for which Rs.8000/- was paid as an advance to the opposite party by the complainant on the same day vide Money Receipt No.:135/Dated:02.08.2021 (Annexure 1). The occupied date of the said rooms was fixed on 20.11.2021 to 21.11.2021. The complainant further alleged that the OP had not allotted the booked rooms on 20.11.2021 at 6 PM when the guests of the complainant arrived at the hotel OP. The OP has allotted only 6 numbers of rooms to the complainant after several approaches. The guests of the complainant vacated the said rooms on 21.11.2021 at 6 PM and handed over the key to the OP. Due to being busy with a marriage function, the complainant did not pay the rent amount on 21.11.2021. The complainant received a bill of Rs.27,328/- for the room rent for six rooms from the opposite party on 22.11.2021 vide invoice no. 206 (Annexure 2). On receipt of the said bill, the complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.27328/- without deducting the advance amount which was paid on 02.08.2023 to the opposite party. Later the complainant verified the said bill and found that the opposite party had charged two days’ rent for the rooms instead of one day's charge and did not deduct the advance amount from the total amount. Accordingly, the complainant approached the op on 24.11.2021 and claimed to make a correction of the bill and to refund the rest of the amount already paid in advance. The opposite party verified the same and agreed to pay the same later on. On 21.03.2022, the opposite party refused to pay the advanced amount of Rs.8000/- and the excess amount of Rs.10080/- towards room charges to the complainant. The cause of action arose on 21.03.2022 when the opposite party threatened the complainant with severe consequences. The complainant further submitted that the op issued a bill on dtd:21.11.2021 at 2.33 PM claiming payment of Rs.35840/- towards occupying of 8 rooms charges for two days and before this message, the opposite party claimed amount for payment of Rs.35840/- at 2.24 PM to the complainant, whereas the guests of the complainant were occupied only 6 rooms out of 12 rooms. The complainant approached the opposite party for a refund of the amounting of Rs.18080/- including the advance amount and excess amount. For the aforementioned reasons, the complainant was blamed by his guests and lost his status, and images before them. Hence, the complainant sought the aforesaid reliefs and exemplary compensation with a refund of the payment of Rs.18080/- from the ops and filed this complaint.
Admitting the complaint, the Commission issued notice to the op which was duly served upon the op through messenger on 16.04.2022.
The op appeared in the case and filed his counter on 18.11.2022. The OP is the lessee of the property which stands in the name of the Berhampur Municipal Corporation. The op submitted through the counter that, the complainant has not approached the physically to book the rooms. Son and wife of the complainant have booked the rooms bearing No.:105, 106, 107, 112, 208, 209, and 212 personally and paid an advance of Rs.8000/-. The OP informed the wife of the complainant regarding rent charges of the premier room and other rooms as Rs.2200/- and Rs.2000/- respectively. Further, the OP has informed the wife of the complainant that the check-in time starts from 6 AM and one day will be calculated on the next day at 6 AM. Though the wife of the complainant has booked only 7 numbers of rooms for the date: 20.11.2021, accordingly, the guests of the complainant arrived at the premises of the op at 6 PM but the liability to pay the rent starts at 6 AM from 20.11.2021. The op submitted in its version that, the complainant is liable to pay 2 days rent as the guests of the complainant handed over the keys of rooms before 6 AM of 22.11.2021. The op has handed over the computerized bill to the complainant as per the request. But the complainant failed to pay the bill amounting to Rs.19328/- towards the room rent. Though the complainant is a respectful person of his locality, the op did not demand the payment immediately on the promise that the complainant may pay it afterward. The computerized bill was created at the request of the complainant but the amount for 2 days was not paid by him. The op sent bills on 21.11.2021 at 2.33 PM for Rs.35840/- relating to kitchen expenses which does not relate to the room rent at all. The OP approached the complainant several times for payment of dues but the complainant avoided the op and filed the present consumer complaint with all false and fabricated allegations. The OP only to save his prestige and goodwill did not approach any authority for recovery of his dues whereas the complainant downs the image of the OP by filling the case before the Consumer Commission. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to a refund as claimed. And given the nonpayment of dues the complainant cannot be treated as consumer and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence the op prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.
On the date of the hearing, both parties are present and the op has filed its Memo of Argument and petition to recall the order dtd:04.08.2023 to accept the written argument. The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant objected to the petition dated: 14.08.2023 but allowed the Ld. Counsel for the OP to submit orally in the case. The law is well settled that, without OP no effective decree can be passed in any case. The Commission relying upon the said authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, recalled the Order Dated: 04.08.2023 and accepted the written argument of the OP.
We perused the case record and available documents and on analyzing the case, the issue is that, whether the consumer complaint is maintainable.
Hard and we perused the available documents in the case record together with the complaint, written version, and Memo of Arguments of both the parties, the complainant being a learned person concealed the material and corroborative document in support of the complaint towards payment of Rs.27328/- to the OP. The complainant has to bring home the allegations leveled against the op beyond reasonable doubt, which the complainant has failed to do in the instant case resultantly.
The OP further submitted that the complainant has no personal knowledge about the booking of the rooms on the premises of the OP. However, the complainant has submitted in his complaint and written argument that to create the cause of action in the present case, the complainant put the room numbers himself on the face of the money receipt vide Annexure No.1 whereas the said room numbers are not found mentioned in the duplicate bill available with the OP.
The case in hand attracts the Doctrine of clean hands. Thus, one who seeks the aid of equity must come into Court with clean hands. Hence a clear inference can be drawn in the instant case that, the complainant has not approached the Commission in clean hands.
In the landmark case of Ramjas Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India & Others, (2010) 14 SCC 38, Hon’ble Apex Court has univocally held as under –
“21. The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Article 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in other Courts and Judicial Forums.”
Therefore, the principle laid down in the above case is very much applicable to the present case and relying upon the Ramjas (Supra) the Commission is left with no alternative but to dismiss the complaint against the OP. No order as to cost.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 21.09.2023.
