DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 224 of 2.8.2007<br /> Decided on : 29.10.2007 <br /> <br /> Surjit Singh S/o Gian Singh, R/o House No. 15, Phase I, Model Town, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> Rekhi Hotel (P) Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda through its Partner/Proprietor<br /> ...... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Baltej Singh Khokhar, Advocate<br /> For the opposite party : Sh. Rajiv Goyal, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Jeevanjot Kaur is the daughter of the complainant. Her Ring Ceremony with Mandeep Singh resident of Jallandhar was to be performed on 23.6.2007. On 15.5.2007, he (complainant) had got booked five rooms, double bed (A.C) for 23.6.2007 for that purpose. A sum of RS. 500/- was paid in advance. On 23.6.2007, when Mandeep Singh and his relatives came from Jallandhar for performing the Ring Ceremony and reached the hotel premises, opposite party refused to give the rooms. Amount of Rs. 500/- has not so far been returned. Complainant had to arrange rooms in hotel Sun City Classic, Bathinda for performing the ceremony. He alleges that he has undergone mental agony and physical pain and has further suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- due to the arbitrary and malafide act of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, he has preferred this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay him Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages/loss/compensation besides refund of Rs. 500/- for deficiency in service.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; it is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has not come with clean hands; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it admits that complainant had got booked five rooms on 15.5.2007 and a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid in advance. He had left the hotel premises hurriedly without leaving his contact address or contact number saying that he would come later, but did not turn up thereafter. It denies that it through its Proprietor/Partner was contacted on 23.6.2007 to occupy the booked rooms. Inter-alia, its plea is that no-one from the complainant side contacted the receptionist. There are twenty rooms in the hotel out of which 13 are Deluxe (Double bed). On 23.6.2007, only 4 rooms out of 13 were occupied and remaining 9 were lying vacant. It had no problem to offer five rooms to the complainant and his men. Booked rooms remained vacant on that day and it has suffered loss of Rs. 4,750/- i.e. Rs. 950/- x 5. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Surjit Singh complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1) and photocopies of receipts (Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.30).<br /> 4. On behalf of opposite party, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Nagendra Kumar Chaudhary, its authorised signatory, photocopy of power of attorney (Ex.R.2) and photocopies of two pages of Room Booking Register (Ex.R.3). <br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Mr. Khokhar, learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that the act and conduct of the opposite party in not giving five booked rooms on 23.6.2007 is arbitrary and illegal. Complainant had to undergo mental pain and damages for which he is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint.<br /> 7. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite party countered the arguments by submitting that opposite party was not at all contacted by the complainant or his men on 23.6.2007 for occupying the rooms although they were lying vacant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. <br /> 8. We have considered respective arguments. Some are the admitted facts in this case. They are that five rooms of opposite party i.e. hotel were booked by the complainant on 15.5.2007 for 23.6.2007. Receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.27, was issued by the opposite party against advance payment of Rs. 500/-.<br /> 9. Onus to prove the averments in the complaint is upon the complainant. He is required to establish his version by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the record that while booking the rooms on 15.5.2007, he had left any contact address or contact number with the opposite party. This fact does not find mention in his affidavit Ex.C.1. No-doubt, from the copy of the receipt Ex.C.30 it is evident that a sum of Rs. 6,800/- has been paid for eight rooms @ Rs. 850/- per room. Total amount paid is Rs. 12,000/-. Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.26, Ex.C.28 and Ex.C.29 reveal the consumption of various items/eatables etc. from hotel Sun Citi Classic on 23.6.2007. Documents Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.26 and Ex.C.28 to Ex.C.30 do not show that the rooms were got booked in Hotel Sun City Classic by Surjit Singh and the expenses were incurred by him on 23.6.2007. According to the averments in the complaint as well as in the affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant, Mandeep Singh and his relatives came from Jallandhar to Bathinda for performing the Ring Ceremony and opposite party refused to give the rooms. It is not his case that he had contacted the opposite party and it had refused to give the rooms to him. Complainant did not muster courage to place and prove on record the affidavit of either Mandeep Singh or his relatives in support of his version. So far as the affidavit Ex.C.1 is concerned, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of Nagendra Kumar Chaudhary which is Ex.R.1. From the evidence led by the opposite party, it is evident that there are 13 Double Bed Rooms out of which 4 were occupied on 23.6.2007. This fact is corroborated from copy (Ex.R.3) of the entries of Room Booking Register. Moreover, story of the complainant does not sound to reason. In case, Ring Ceremony of the daughter of a person is fixed for some particular date and rooms are booked in a hotel for that purpose, he either in person or through some representative would certainly contact the concerned officials of the hotel to know about the booked rooms so that there may not be any inconvenience to him and his guests in the performance of the ceremony. There is no evidence that complainant or his men took such like steps. On such like occasions father of the girl and some other respectables go to the venue prior to the time fixed with the parents of the guy to receive them. Evidence to this effect is lacking. Had the available rooms in the hotel been booked by opposite parties for 23.6.2007 for some other persons and occupied, position would have been different. Version of the opposite party appears probable and plausible. It seems that there is something else behind the story which has been concealed by the complainant. In this scenario, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established.<br /> 10. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 29.10.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />