Delhi

East Delhi

cc/1113/2013

BRIJ BHUSHAN TYAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARK PLAZA SHAHDARA - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-1113/13

In the matter of:

Sh. BRIJ BHUSHAN TYAGI, ADVOCATE,

CHAMBER No. F-722, F-BLOCK,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS,

DELHI-110032       

          Complainant

 

Vs

 

M/S PARK PLAZA SHAHDARA CBD

THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER

PLOT No.32, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT,

•  
•  

                                                                                                                    Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                        DATE OF ADMISSION-06/01/2014

                                                                                      DATE OF ORDER         -12/10/2015

ORDER

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

The complainant is a member of Central Board of Film Certification, Government of India. He is a social worker apart from Advocate. He decided to hold a Seminar/Conference and approached the respondent on 28/09/2013 for booking conference hall for 29/09/2013 between 3.30 pm to 5.30 pm. Ms. Niharika, Manager was told about requirements regarding the object and purpose of the Conference which will be attended by Bureaucrats, Technocrats, Social Activists and Senior officials from Delhi Police. She was also told the requirements of Hall with the Audio System along with the Laptop and arrangement for High-tea for around 150 persons. Mr. Siddharth Choudhry, the Senior Manager agreed on the rate of Rs.494/- per person for High-Tea which included Sandwich and Cookies along with Coffee/Tea with the facility of Audio.  He paid Rs.50,000/- as advance. On 29/09/2013 at about 12.30 pm when he reached the hotel, Ms. Niharika was on leave and Ms. Alisha was deputed to attend. She was told to provide Laptop along with the Audio System for presenting the objective through projector in the conference hall. The respondent neither provided the Laptop nor did they serve the Sandwich to the guests. For the said negligent act, the complainant felt humiliated, insulted and he could not deliver his speech and present the recorded interview which was earlier given by the complainant to China Radio International and he felt embarrassed in front of the distinguished guests. The respondent has committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant has prayed 10,00,000/- for compensation with 18% interest and cost of litigation.

            The complainant filed their reply wherein they have denied the allegation made in the complaint and admitted the booking of the Conference Hall for 29/09/2013. It is denied that any Laptop was to be provided. The Banquet Manager Ms. Alisha was never requested to provide the Laptop. It is only two Audio Mikes which were promised and were timely provided.  The demand of the ‘Laptop’ and ‘Sand witches’ are baseless and has been raised to harass the respondent Hotel. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice. It is the complainant who has to pay the balance amount of Rs.33,895.34. The bill of which has been served upon the complainant through registered post. This complaint has been filed to evade the balance payment.

            The complainant filed the Rejoinder and denied the plea of the respondent that the Laptop and Sandwich were not to be provided. They have also questioned the outstanding dues. The Affidavit of complainant has been filed and the respondent has not filed any Affidavit in Evidence on record.

            Heard and perused the material available on record.

            The short question which arises for our consideration in this case is that as to whether the respondent has been deficient in providing the services to the complainant who has booked the Conference Hall for organizing the Seminar for 29/09/2013. This fact is admitted to the respondent that the advance payment of Rs.50,000/- was made and balance payment of Rs.33,895.34 was due. There is specific plea raised in the complaint with regard to the Laptop for making the presentation for Conference and for the High Tea, Cookies along with Coffee, Tea, and Sandwiches which was to be served to the participants. The main allegation of the complainant is with regard to non availability of Laptop which restricts him from making an Audio Visible presentation and non serving of the Sandwiches to the guests. The respondent denied in their reply that any such facility was to be provided. It is argued by the complainant that the respondent could have filed on record the documents pertaining to the booking which could have established what was agreed to be provided and what was not to be provided. The complainant has filed an Affidavit wherein he has verified this on oath that in the rate of Rs.494/- per person for High-Tea, Sandwiches, Cookies along with Coffee and Tea included the facility of Audio along with the Laptop was also assured by the respondent. In the absence of any evidence on oath on record from the side of the respondent, the statement on oath of Sh. Brij Bhushan singh, Advocate cannot be ignored and has to be believed in this regard that the Laptop was to be made available for making presentation in the Conference. This is not denied by the respondent that the High-Tea was not the part of the deal. The respondent could have placed their documents relating to the booking in question showing the details of facilities to be provided and what was served with holding documents by the respondent and not filing the Affidavit to rebut the contention on oath of the complainant establishes that the respondent was under obligation to provide the Laptop and Sandwiches and the same was not provided. This is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the respondent, M/s Park Plaza is a renowned Hotel, this is not expected from such organization that they will indulge in such unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed on oath that he felt embarrassed in front of the distinguished guest as they could not be served properly and his recorded speech/interview given to China Radio International could not be played. The complainant argued his reputation was lowered. We agree with the complainant that if the guests are not treated properly and they went dissatisfied. The organizer is blamed, always for poor show. In so far as the question of any balance payment is concerned, the respondent is always at liberty to take suitable steps for recovery, if the same has not been paid.  

            Taking all the facts into consideration we are of the view that the complainant reputation has been dented by the act and omission of the respondent and it cannot be compensated in terms of money. To make the respondent realize that such act and omission amounts to unfair trade practice. This is necessary to impose some penalty in the form of compensation and we quantify this amount as Rs.50,000/- which shall be paid by the respondent to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, if it is not paid then the complainant shall be entitle for 9% interest till it is finally paid.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

SUBHASH GUPTA                   POONAM MALHOTRA                               N.A.ZAIDI

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT