DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.426/10
Shri Sudhir Gupta
S/o Late Shri B.K. Gupta
R/o 21, Old Survey Road
Dehradun-248001.
Smt. Mani Gupta
W/o Shri Sudhir Gupta
R/o 21, Old Survey Road
Dehradun -248001. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Ms. Jaspal Kaur
(W/o not known to the complainants)
E-92/93, Amar Colony
Lajpat Nagar-IV
New Delhi-110024. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution:29.06.2010
Date of Order :12.12.2023
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking an amount of Rs.1,31,000/- inclusive of refund of the advance payment of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @24% per annum from 1,31,000.00 from 29.06.2008 expenses, damages and litigation cost.
- It is stated by the complainant that the complainants contacted the OP from Dehradun with a view to get an accommodation in Delhi for their daughter who had moved to Delhi for her higher education.
- It is further stated by the complainant that it was projected by the OP that their accommodation is well lit, well furnished room, clean, airy licensed by Delhi Police, quality of food, safe and that the charges of lodging were Rs.4,200/- per month, plus Rs.1,000/- per month for every meal. The Complainants were informed if they are interested in blocking the accommodation they should pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- in cash as there was heavy demand for accommodation in the OP’s hostel.
- It is the case of the complainant that he requested one of their relatives to pay the said amount of Rs.5,000/- which was sent through their driver but no receipt was issued to the said driver and he was told that there was no practice of providing any receipt. However, the driver called the relative and the OP acknowledged on the phone that the money has been received and that she would not be issuing any formal receipt.
- It is the case of the complainant that they came to Delhi on 02.07.2008 to satisfy themselves about the hostel but when they saw the rooms, the same were dark, dingy without attached toilets, no proper ventilation and there was a health hazard. It was found that the representation made by the OP on telephone was false and baseless. It was found to be an illegal, shady place. The complainants then demanded the amount of Rs.5,000/- to be returned from the OP which was flatly refused stating that the amount stands forfeited.
- It is stated by the complainant that the OP’s refusal is illegal, unethical and against business practices and the complainant also demanded through a legal notice, compensation for expenses for making unscheduled visit from Dehradun to Delhi and their stay for three days has also to be compensated for harassment.
- OP in her reply, stated that the complaint is not maintainable and it is false, frivolous. It is stated that the complainants are not consumers of the OP and therefore cannot seek any relief from this forum as the OP has not rendered any service. It is stated that OP has not provided any hostel services to the complainant. And that there is no hostel being run by the OP which is evident from the fact that name of the said hostel has also not been mentioned or stated by the complainant.
- It is further submitted by the OP that alleged dispute is between landlord and tenant without admitting the fact that the complainants or her daughter ever resided or paid any money to the OP and has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmiben Laxmi Chand Vs. Sakerben Kanji Chandan (2001) 9SCC 604 wherein it was held that tenant is not a consumer.
- It is denied by the OP that she was ever paid any money towards rent or advance. It is also denied that she operated or operates any hostel from the premises in question. But the premises are led to the tenants without rendering any services to the tenants. It is stated by her that complainants enquired from the OP regarding rent and location of the premises but after visiting the premises they did not turn up and did not pay a single penny.
- It is categorically denied that she is renting big or any hostel for girl or any student and therefore question of licensing does not arise. It is also denied that any food is served in this premises. It is also denied by her that she asked for Rs.5,000/-or any other sum for booking the accommodation. And since no money was received there was not assurance of returning the same or does not arise at all.
- It is denied by the OP that she has dragged the complainant or their daughter from Dehradun to visit a shabby or unacceptable accommodation. It is further denied that she is guilty in mental pain or agony or physical harassment or unnecessary expenditure on them. Legal notice is also denied by the OP.
- In their rejoinder, complainants have denied all the averments made by the OP and reiterated the facts stated in the complaint. Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written submissions.
- This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. It is seen that the complainant has not filed any single proof regarding the payment made or the averments made regarding the alleged hostel which has been vehemently denied by the OP. It is a fact that the complainant has not even provided the name of the hostel or any pictures to prove their case.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following
“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”
It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP. This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
