Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, this complaint case is filed u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Association of Surgeons of India.
The complaint case, in a nutshell, is that, for the purpose of holding 3rd National Conference of Association of Breast Surgeons of India, namely, “ABSICON 2014”, it booked the OP No. 1 Resort/Hotel on payment of due charges. Allegedly, the delegates, who took part in the said symposium, had a very bitter experience, thanks to complete breakdown of Resort/Hotel’s central air-conditioning plant. Holding the OPs responsible for the misery of its guests, this complaint case is filed.
On notice, the OPs appeared and defended their case by filing WV. They firstly disputed the maintainability of the complaint case questioning the locus standi of the Complainant to file this case. They denied any intentional laches on their part and attributed it to force majeure factors.
Points for consideration
1.Whether the instant case is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
3.Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief?
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1
It appears from the copy of registration certificate that the Complainant is a registered Society under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. Thus, in terms of Sec. 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there can be no manner of doubt as regards the status of the Complainant as a ‘person’. Together with this, when we consider the definition of ‘consumer’ u/s 2(1)(d) of the Act, which states, ‘consumer’ means any person, who hires or avails of any services for a consideration, we have no qualms holding the Complainant is a bona fide ‘consumer’ under the Act.
It is though argued on behalf of the OPs that the Complainant organized the said seminar for commercial purpose, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant disputed such averment of the OPs contenting inter alia that the Complainant organized the said seminar purely for academic purpose. Stretching further his argument, he contended that worldwide, scientific conferences are organized for dissemination of knowledge and teaching upcoming doctors and Post Graduate students. Medical companies join such conferences to apprise attending doctors about their products and developments for which they bear a portion of the cost of the conference. In lieu of it, they are allowed to place banners and stalls at the venues for displaying their products. The Complainant claimed that there was no provision for selling any of the displayed products at the venue being selected by it.
On due consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, we find enough force into the contention of the Complainant. It may well be that stalls were installed at the venue by different medical companies on payment of fixed charges; however, at the same time, there can be no two opinions as to the fact that organizing events at posh hotels/resorts entail huge cost. In this case, as it transpires, the Complainant paid Rs. 17,50,000/- to the OP No. 1 before commencement of the seminar in question. Besides, the Complainant also borne to & fro air fare, transport charges, professional fees etc. of several distinguished faculties. It was but natural, therefore, that the Complainant would seek and make due endeavour to realize such costs from the sponsors of the event. It was futile to find out any profit earning motive behind such activities.
The inevitable conclusion we derive at in view of above findings is that the instant complaint case is very much maintainable under the 1986 Act.
Point Nos. 2&3:
Both these inter-linked points are taken up together for the sake of brevity of discussion.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that it was scheduled to organize live operative workshop at the Resort/Hotel’s Conference Hall from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 13-06-2014 which was supposed to be relayed live from the OT of IPGME&R/SSKM Hospital, Kolkata and for this purpose, the Complainant invited several noted international faculties. It is alleged by the Ld. Advocate that on 12-06-2014, when few delegates arrived at the hotel, owing to malfunctioning of the central air conditioning system, the situation turned beggar description. He alleged that, on 12-06-2014, although there was complete breakdown of air-conditioning system in the entire hotel/resort, no positive steps were taken for about 2 hours. As there was no alternative back up air-conditioning system in the Resort/Hotel, the live operative workshop that was scheduled to be held from 8 a.m. on 13-6-2014, Ld. Advocate alleged, had to be deferred by 3 hours. Owing to repeated power failure, it is alleged by the Ld. Advocate that the entire programme went haywire on that day. It is also alleged that throughout the conference, the food court, lobbies, and dining space of the Resort/hotel were terribly hot and humid. On request, though the OP No. 1 arranged two pedestal fans, it was inadequate to cater to the need of approx. 300 delegates. The OP No. 1, it is alleged, also failed to provide free Wi-Fi service, as promised. Stating that the organizing Conference Secretariat lost their reputation only because of the gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1, the Ld. Advocate prayed for allowing the complaint case.
On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the OPs submitted that it being mid of June, temperature and humidity was highest during that time of the year and as the guests of the Complainant arrived at the Resort/Hotel from outside, they took some time to acclimatize with the prevailing condition. He also submitted that due to severe and unprecedented thunderstorm and torrential rain, the cooling tower of the Central Conditioning System sustained severe damage. Despite this the trained staff of the OP No. 1 promptly swung into action and did their level best to restore the air conditioning system which took some legitimate/reasonable time. Ld. Advocate also argued that heavy-duty generators were hired from traders/suppliers in Kolkata and the same were pressed into service as and when required. Thus, there was continuous and uninterrupted power supply in the conference hall. The OPs, Ld. Advocate continued, keeping in mind the importance of the conference, hired two heavy duty Tower air conditioners on 13-06-2014 and the same were pressed into action well before the scheduled conference/live workshop time, i.e., 8 a.m. on 13-06-2014. Ld. Advocate also asserted that guests of the Complainants were relocated at ‘Fortune Select Loudon’, Kolkata which was a mere 10-15 minutes drive from the conference venue and their transportation was also arranged free of cost by the OP No. 1. Pointing out that some of the guests of the Complainant overstayed at the Resort/hotel till 16-06-2014, Ld. Advocate argued that, if they had any resentment in their minds about the standard of hospitality being rendered by the OP Resort/Hotel, they would certainly not voluntarily reside there even for a day, let alone lingering their stay at the resort/hotel.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission of the parties and perused the documents very carefully.
Be it mentioned here that the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant refused to buy the argument of the OP that the air conditioning system collapsed owing to natural calamity. Drawing our attention to the copy of The Telegraph, Kolkata edition dated 13-06-2014, he submitted that according to said report, the storm originated in Bankura in the afternoon and kicked in the North-West direction a little after 6 p.m. The wind speed peaked at 56 kmph for two minutes from 6.33 p.m. The Alipore Met Office recorded 2 mm. rainfall between 5.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. However, the central conditioning system of the OPs broke down completely around 9 p.m. on that day. Thus, he contended that it could not be an act of God under any circumstances. Not to put too fine a point on it, i.e., whether complete breakdown of the air conditioning system of the Resort/Hotel took place owing to severe and unprecedented thunderstorm and torrential rain, as claimed by the OP No. 1 or on account of mechanical fault of the cooling tower, as alleged by the Complainant, what stands confirmed is the fact that the OP No. 1 was totally ill-equipped to deal with contingency situations like the ones occurred on 12/13-06-2014. Such lack of foresightedness on the part of any professional body is quite unheard of. No wonder, attendants of the said conference dearly paid the price of OP No. 1’s thoughtlessness.
It is though claimed by the OP No. 1 that heavy-duty tower air-conditioning machines were arranged before 8 a.m. on 13-06-2014, it transpires from the copy of bill being raised by M/s Cool Point that the AC Machine of 20 ton capacity was hired only for two days on 14-06-2014 and 15-06-2014. As it appears, the OP Resort/Hotel arranged few small domestic tower AC machines for the conference hall on 13-06-2014. According to the Complainant, it was inadequate to provide due comfort to the participants of said event. In case said small AC machines could fulfill the purpose adequately, it would certainly not warrant hiring of bigger AC machine from the next day onwards.
It also appears that on 13-06-2014, there was repeated power cuts (15 times) which greatly hampered the planned live operative workshop at the venue. As we find, the OP No. 1 hired only one 25 KVA DG set for 13-06-2014. That the same was inadequate to cater to the need of the conference, gets evident from the fact that the OP No. 1 hired 125 KVA DG set for the next two days, i.e., 14-06-2014 and 15-06-2014.
It is also alleged by the Complainant that during the entire conference, the food court, lobbies and dining space of the Resort/hotel were excruciatingly hot and humid due to non-functioning of central air conditioning system of the OP Hotel/Resort. On repeated requests, though the OP No. 1 arranged two pedestal fans for approx. 300 guests at the dining space of the hotel/resort measuring about 1,200 sq. ft., the delegates could not take their food satisfactorily. The OP No. 1 although claimed that they provided numerous fans in the lobbies and dining hall, it appears from the Invoice of M/s Gupta Enterprise that only 6 fans were hired for this purpose.
No wonder, thanks to utter failure of the OP No. 1 to make suitable alternative arrangements, the guests had a distressing time at the conference venue. It appears from the copy of invitation letter that the organizers were committed to hold the prestigious event at the best possible venue in this part of the country. However, thanks to total mismanagement/unprofessionalism/shortsightedness of the OP No. 1, the Complainant was completely let down. The OP No. 1 must introspect, after incurring such huge expenditure, did the Complainant deserve such humiliation. It was no ordinary event and it seems, the OP No. 1 was well aware of the significance of such prestigious event. As it appears, guests from abroad also took part in the event. Such poor management of the Resort/Hotel surely did not christen the image of our country before the outsiders. In our considered opinion, therefore, the OP No. 1 cannot abdicate their responsibility to compensate the Complainant. By organizing alternative accommodation or arranging free transportation of some of the guests and providing buffet lunch in place of packed lunch or arranging complimentary freebies etc., the lost glory cannot be regained - goodwill once lost is lost forever.
In view of this, we find enough substance in this complaint case and thus hold that the Complainant is entitled to due relief.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The case stands allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 in part with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- and dismissed on contest against the OP No. 2. OP No. 1 shall pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainant as compensation. Non-compliance of this order in toto within 40 days henceforth shall entail payment of simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the entire period of default.
