Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/73

Ram Saran Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Orchid Hotel - Opp.Party(s)

Sahil Garg

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

RUPNAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.        :73of 23.05.2022

Date of Decision                     :24.03.2023

 

 

Ram Saran Bhatia aged about 62 years sonof Maluk Dass R/o House No.43, Gareen Enclave, Near Railway Station Morinda Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar (Aadhar No.630317520351).

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

Orchid Hotel, Darpan Enclave, Morinda, Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar, through its Manager.

      …Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.SahilGarg, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.Hardeep Singh Bassi,Advocate

 

ORDER

PER  KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. In the present complaint, the counsel for complainant has averred thaton 20.02.2022 complainant booked hotel of OP for dated 26.03.2022 for program of ring ceremony of his daughter and stay of guest from 25.03.2022 to 27.03.2022 and deal was finalized and OP assured the complainant to give full facilities in the ring ceremony to the complainant who booked the hotel and gave Rs.10,000/- in advance through bank credit card, but on 23.02.2022, Op refused to give some facilities in the ring ceremony.On 23.02.2023, complainant met the OP and asked about the refusal of facilities and then OP did not agree to give all facilities in ring ceremony as assured by OP on 20.02.2022 and due to which complainant cancelled the said booking of hotel for ring ceremony of his daughter and demanded back the said amount of Rs.10,000/-.  Then the OP put the matter of and on one pretext or the other.  On 24.02.2022 when complainant met with OP and requested to return the said amount, then Op refused to return said amount to complainant.  Thereafter, complainant approached many times to OP when OP called but return with new excuse made by OP.  Complainant issued legal notice to OP and same received on 02.03.2022 and replied the same through his counsel.  Lastly, prayer has been made that the OP be directed to return amount of Rs.10,000/- and also to pay Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.50,000/- as harassment.  
2. Upon notice, OPhas appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as it is complainant who himself backed out from his onwards and not contacted to office of OP rather wrongly sent notice through his counsel Sh.SahilGarg, Advocate; Complainant approached the OP and requested the OP to provide rooms for the stay of some persons for two days and given the specific date regarding the stay of his guests in hotel of OP.  Thereafter, complainant has not contacted the OP hotel for stay of his guests and wrongly send the notice which was duly replied by OP hotel.  Complainant has not come present for booking period and Manager of Hotel disclosed to complainant that they were having every arrangement as per their demand and due to said reason they have not taken further booking for the said period of 25.03.2022 to 27.03.2022 for rooms of one floor.  Even at the time of transferring of Rs.10,000/- it was specifically disclosed by Manager of hotel that this amount is not returnable and it was the complainant who has transferred the said amount of Rs.10,000/- after due inspection of premises of hotel and after verifying condition of rooms.  Complainant firstly got satisfied himself with the location, condition and arrangement of hotel then transferred the amount of Rs.10,000/- for said requirement; complainant has not come with clean hands.  It is complainant who has caused the loss to OP hotel by paying only Rs.10,000/- for providing the rooms from 25.03.2022 to 27.03.2022 which were not further booked by OP hotel and thus the complainant cause the loss to OP hotel more than Rs.50,000/-.  On merits, other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents.
4. We have heard learned the parties with their valuable assistance and have also gone through the record carefully.
5. The question for determination before the Commission is that whether this Commission has jurisdiction or not.  From the record, it is transpired that complainant has hired the service of OP who having run his business/work in the District Rupnagar.  So this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute of present complaint.
6. There is no dispute of ring ceremony of daughter of complainant and hire services of OP. Moreover, complainant has not produce any documents that what he booked or not booked with OP.  As such, without touching merits of the case, there cogent evidence, testimonies of witnesses are required. As the proceedings of this Commission are summary in nature.So, proper adjudication, of the case, it is deemed fit that the parties be approached to Civil Court for Redressal of their grievance involved in the present complaint.
7. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the complaint, this complaint is disposed of with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
9. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:24.03.2023

 

 

          (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)                  (Kuljit Singh)

          Member                                           President