Delhi

North East

CC/138/2021

Sh. Rahul Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Unplugged Affairs - Opp.Party(s)

04 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.138/21

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri. Rahul Kumar S/o Sh. Bachochoo Singh, R/o H.No. D-721, Gali No. 19 Near Transformer, Bhajanpura Delhi-110053		Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.           3.           4.       5.         6.           7.         8.	M/s Unplugged Affairs 3rd Floor, Orchid Centre Near IILM Institute, Sec-53, Next to Sec.- 54, Gurugram, Haryana 122022   Sh. Akash Gandhi Partner of M/s Unplugged Affairs, 3rd Floor, Orchid Centre Near IILM Institute, Sec-53, Next to Sec.- 54, Gurugram, Haryana 122022   Sh. RajanGogia Partner of M/s Unplugged Affairs, 3rd Floor, Orchid Centre Near IILM Institute, Sec-53, Next to Sec.- 54, Gurugram, Haryana 122022   M/s HOBO Associates At: 147, SardarTrilok Singh Street, Raipur Dehradun, Uttrakhand-248008   Sh. Tushar Sharma Proprietor of M/s HOBO Associates At: 147, SardarTrilok Singh Street, Raipur Dehradun, Uttrakhand-248008   M/s Samsara The Resort & Club Corbett (A unit of Manila Resorts Pvt. Ltd.) Village, Kanchanpur, Choi Ramnagar, Distt. Nainital, Uttrakhand 244715   M/s Harshita Event Hub House No. 20, HimmatPur, Dotiyal, Ramnagar, Distt. Nainital Uttrakhand 244715   Sh. Naveen Negi, Proprietor of M/s Harshita Event Hub House No. 20, HimmatPur, Dotiyal, Ramnagar, Distt. Nainital, Uttrakhand 244715	Opposite Party No. 1           Opposite Party No. 2           Opposite Party No. 3       Opposite Party No. 4         Opposite Party No. 5           Opposite Party No. 6         Opposite Party No. 7           Opposite Party No. 8

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:

28.09.2021 26.07.2023 04.09.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

                                                                  ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the    Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that in the month of August 2020, Complainant along with his elder brother were planning for his own destination wedding to be done by taking services of wedding planner and in this concern Complainant made search on internet website “Shaadisaga.com” and on very next day, Opposite Party No. 2 & 3, approached to the Complainant through Opposite Party No. 1 with offer to provide end to end solutions for wedding event and destination wedding at very reasonable and hassle free services at the door step. Both, the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1, 2 & 3 agreed for terms and conditions for destination wedding after discussing the event and arrangement of destination wedding, service and service charges, mode of payment etc., whereas the Opposite Party offer destination wedding at “TAG RESORTS” Choi Village, Ram Nagar, Uttrakhand and the offer was accepted by the Complainant against the total cost of  Rs. 7,00,000/- including GST/service charges. Then the Complainant went to see resort on 03.09.2020 at Ram Nagar, Uttrakhand with his friend, where Opposite Party No. 2, 3 were already present there. Then they introduced their business partner i.e. Opposite Party No. 4 and Opposite Party No. 5 and Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 were also assured the Complainant that Opposite Party No. 5 would arrange all the required things for destination wedding and further assured that Opposite Party No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 jointly or severally arrange all required arrangement and formalities. Then the Complainant need to pay 10 %  of the total agreed amount i.e. Rs. 7,00,000/- for booking confirmation and hence the Complainant paid Rs. 25,000/- on 04.09.2020 to Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 through Paytm and Rs. 45,000/- on 05.09.2020. The “TAG RESORTS” Choi Village, Ram Nagar, Uttrakhand was selected for destination wedding thereafter Opposite Party No. 2, 3 and 5 had confirmed booking of the said resort for the Complainant. On 23.09.2020, the Opposite Party No. 3 had telephonically asked Complainant for next part of payment i.e 15 % of total agreed amount and Complainant had issued a cheque in favour of Opposite Party No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- of dated 24.09.2020 drawn on Bank of Baroda. On 27.09.2020, the Complainant had made a telephone call to the said resort to know about his wedding booking confirmation and said respondent refused him that there is no such booking with the resort. On 02.10.2020, Complainant along with his elder brother went to Ram Nagar Uttrakhand to know the status of said resort booking then the Opposite Party No. 5 who was already present there made pretext one after another about the booking of said resort and insisting to book another resorts and finally book “SAMSARA”  Samsara the Resort & Club, Corbett, a unit of Manila Resort Pvt., Ltd., Opposite Party No. 6 with booking amount of Rs. 21,000/-. After some days Opposite Party No. 2 pressurizing Complainant by intimidating in various ways to pay more amount to book other multiple services and then Complainant had transfer Rs. 25,000/- on 28.11.20 and Rs. 25,000/- on 01.12.2021 through Phonepe and in this way Complainant had made payment to Opposite Party No. 2 was Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1,75,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 3 and Rs. 3,25,000/- to Opposite Party No. 2. Hence, total sum of money paid to Opposite Parties were Rs. 5,50,000/- out of  Rs. 7,00,000/- as per agreement dated 01.10.2020. Opposite Party No. 6 had done nothing and Opposite Party No. 1, 2 & 3 not responded then, after about 3 hours of efforts Complainant booked the same resort afresh for the wedding rituals and abovementioned services although by taking advantages of the circumstances Opposite Party No. 6, 7 & 8 provided defective, poor, inferior services and provided food, room services etc. at very high unreasonable cost, which was almost double price than usual price to make the arrangement whereas the Complainant had paid Rs. 12,61,000/- in addition to already paid agreed amount to Opposite Party for the same wedding. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of damage of reputation, mental agony, physical stain & Stigma and deficiency  of services and also to refund the amount Rs. 11,41,000/- to the Complainant that charged more than the agreed amount and Rs. 50,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 19.04.2022.

Ex-parte evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file.  The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Parties did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to pay jointly or severally an amount of Rs. 11,41,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay jointly or severally an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and    Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 04.09.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)