This is a complaint made by one Dr. Pramathes Das Mahapatra, consulting Physician and Director, Medical Education and Research Society of India, residing at 55/1, Shibnath Sastri Sarani, Block B, P. S. New Alipore , Kolkata- 700053 against M/s. Eglobe Solutions, a unit of Direct Hetels Pvt. Ltd., having its office at 301, Ansal Classique Tower, J-Block, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, OP No.1 and Hotel Taj Galaxy, Agra, 18B-18C, Taj Nagari , Phase-1, Fatahabad Road, Agra, OP No.2 praying for a direction upon the OPs to make payment of the money paid in advance by the Complainant and further direction upon the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as special damages and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts, in brief, are that Complainant a Doctor by profession booked a hotel through M/s. Eglobe Solutions at Agra because he was visited Agra in the mid of January, 2016 for attending medical conferences from 14/1/2016 to 16/1/2016 for his stay there. Complainant paid an advance of Rs.1,350/- through online to OP No. 1 and on 3^rd. December, 2015 the reservation of hotel was confirmed. Thereafter, he went to Agra placing on that booking. But hotel at Agra, OP No.2 refused to accommodate him and stating that there is no such booking.

            So, Complainant filed this case. OP No.1 has filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. OP No.1 has further stated that he paid Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the Complainant vide D.D. bearing No.827694 dated 24.05.2016 drawn on State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Park Street on 25/5/2016 and the dispute has been compromised between them.

            OP NO.2 did not make any appearance.

            Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief and reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            At the time of argument Ld. Advocate for OP No.1 admitted that his client has already received Rs.30,000/-  as compensation. As such it appears that the prayer of the Complainant has already been allowed and the dispute has been resolved as it appears from the written version. No doubt, Complainant has prayed for Rs.85,000/- as damages, compensation and litigation cost. In our view this case is on the excessive side and it cannot be allowed by any stretch of imagination. Since Complainant has already received Rs.30,000/- , no further relief is required to be allowed.

            Hence,

            O R D E R E D

            CC/189/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.