IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 29th day of July, 2016
Filed on 28.12.2013
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.398/2013
Between
Complainants:- Opposite party:-
- Sri. Krishnakumar The Proprietor
Vadakke Palottu Veedu Hotel Royal Plaza, Near Railway
Kadampanadu Panchayathu Over Bridge, K.P. Road
Ward No.7, Addoor Taluk Kayamkulam, Alappuzha
Pathanamthitta Pin – 690 502
(By Adv. George Varghese)
2. Smt. Sujatha, W/o Krishnakumar
-do- -do-
(By Adv. B. Girish)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainants have taken a room on rental basis for a day from 8.05 a.m. on 8.2.2012 to 12.06 p.m. on 9.2.2012 in the hotel conducted by the opposite party. An advance amount of Rs.1000/- was paid at the time of taking the room and room No.306 was allotted to them. While so in between 11 p.m. on 8.2.2012 to 3 a.m. on 9.2.2012 a theft was taken place in the room in which the complainants and their child were sleeping. The gold ornaments, cash of Rs.2100/-, Pan card and ATM cards of the complainants were lost from the room in which the complainants taken for rent. The eastern side of the room not at all sufficient to fit enough to give safety to them. But the opposite party did not give any attention to the same. The complainants have lost a total amount of Rs.1,85,000/-. This incident created much mental agony to the complainants. A complaint was lodged before the Kayamkulam Police Station by the complainants. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. Complainant is not a consumer. The alleged theft happened was not due to the fault of the opposite party. All the rooms in the hotel are well secured and intact if locked properly. There might have been some default from the side of the complainants in locking the room which lead to the alleged theft if happened. More over an express warning is being given to all the inmates of the opposite party hotel to keep their belongings in their own risk. The opposite party has a locker facility to keep the valuable belongings of the customers. So a customer, who wishes to avail locker facility, can avail the same from the opposite party hotel. The opposite party hotel will become liable for the loss of any belongings of a customer only if the said customer availed locker facility. But here the complainants didn’t avail the locker facility even if it was informed to them by the opposite party through the written bill. Yet another aspect is that, the opposite party hotel is a three start hotel having four star facilities. The theft is alleged by the complainants, but not proved. The gold ornaments, money and other articles mentioned in the paragraph of the complaint are mere fantasies of the complainants. At the time of availing the room in opposite party hotel the complainants didn’t have those articles with them. Kayamkulam Police has registered a crime upon the complaint given by the complainants and the investigation is still going on. Without the conclusion of that investigation it can’t be said that a theft as alleged by the complainants have been taken place. If the windows are locked properly no one can open it from the outside. The complainants are not entitled to get any amount for compensation for their loss.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Exts.A2 and A4 marked subject to objection. The S.I. of Police, Kayamkulam was examined as CW1. The document produced was marked through him as Ext.C1. The opposite party was examined as RW1.
4. The points for considerations are:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. Point No.1:- Regarding the preliminary issue of maintainability, a detailed order is passed finding that the complaint is maintainable.
6. Point Nos.2 & 3:- It is an admitted fact that complainants have taken a room for rental basis from the opposite party’s Hotel on 8.2.2012. According to the complainants a theft took place between 11 p.m. on 8.2.2012 to 3 a.m. on 9.2.2012. Bengali Model Kapp Size Bangle – 2 Nos. each weighing 24 grams, Gold Chain – Thara chain – weighting 16 grams, and Green and Whites studded rings 2 Nos. each having the gold weight of 2 grams, cash Rs.2,100/-, Pan card and ATM cards were lost from bag of the complainants. The police was also informed and a complaint was lodged before the Kayamkulam Police Station. Ext.A3 is the photo copy of the complaint lodged to the Kayamkulam Police Station and Ext.A2 is the first information report No.202/12. CD – files in Crime No.202/12 of Kayamkulam Police Station is also produced. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam was examined as CW1 and the CD files are marked as Ext.C1. While he was examined, he deposed before the Forum that on getting complaint from the complainants, FIR was registered and enquiries were made. He deposed that the enquiry continued for a period of one year and 3 months and they could not prove the case, so that UN Report is filed before the Court. While first complainant was cross examined, he stated that the opposite party’s hotel is a luxury hotel. When the learned counsel of the opposite party put a question, ……………………………… While cross examining the opposite party he also admitted that the hotel has 4 star facilities. According to the complainant, the eastern side window of the room was not properly constructed and it can be opened by any person from outside of the room. But it was denied by the opposite party. According to the opposite party if the windows were properly locked, no one can open it from outside. As per Ext.C1 no evidence was obtained from the Police about the person who committed the theft. It is pertinent to notice that whether there is CCTV Camera is arranged is or not proved by the opposite party. As per the revised guide lines for approval of guest house issued in the month of December, 2009 by the Government of India, Ministry of Tourism H and R Division states that the installation of CCTV in public areas with data backup is mandatory. In this case, the opposite party has no case that there was no CCTV. Whether the CCTV footage was collected by the Police is also not stated anywhere. Therefore an inference is strong that there was CCTV Camera and they did not choose to file the same as evidence and as such adverse inference is drawn against the opposite party.
7. Apart from the solitary testimony of the complainant there is no evidence produced to prove the allegation that the complainant brought gold ornaments in to hotel room and also the quality of gold ornaments alleged to have possessed or kept in the room. Hence it is difficult to quantify the damages without valid proof regarding the alleged loss of gold ornaments. From the police investigation also no trace of evidence is brought out regarding the alleged loss of gold ornaments.
7. In this circumstance the complainants have miserably failed to prove the alleged damages sustained by them. But the police records prima facie shows that there occurred an incident whether it was in a theft is not conclusive as per the police records. Hence it will not be justified from the part of the Forum to accept the case of the complainant as a whole without proper evidence. In the light of the available evidence of the case, we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get a just compensation for the mental agony and pain, they have sustained due to the inconvenience caused to them.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri.Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainants:-
PW1 - Krishnakumar (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Original of the hotel bill
Ext.A2 - Photo copy of the FIR (Subject to objection)
Ext.A3 - Photo copy of the complaint lodged to the Kayamkulam Police Station
Ext.A4 - Paper cuttings of the theft published in the news paper (Subject to objection)
CW1 - Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam (Court Witness)
Ext.C1 - CD Files
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Wilson George (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
