Punjab

StateCommission

FA/955/2013

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Castle Resorts - Opp.Party(s)

D.R. Singla

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.955 of 2013

 

                                                Date of Institution: 03.09.2013

                                                Date of Decision:  25.04.2016

 

Raj Kumar s/o Harbans Lal r/o 3364, Agwar Pona near Filly Gate, Jagraon, Ludhiana.

 

                                                                Appellant/Complainant

                             Versus

 

Royal Castle Resorts, Village Meharban, Rehon Road, Ludhiana through its Manager.

 

 

                                                                  Respondent/Complainant

         

First Appeal against order dated 08.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Ludhiana.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.H.S.Guram, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant             : Sh.B.S Aulakh, Advocate       

          For the respondent          : None

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 08.05.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that he booked resort of OP for marriage of his sister's daughter for 19.01.2013. The OP assured the complainant that resort was equipped with fully advanced facilities and assured for security of the goods, luggage and ornaments. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- against booking for 19.01.2013 and Rs.5000/- on 25.08.2012 to OP. The complainant was liable to pay remaining amount of Rs.55,000/- to OP before start of the function. The entire amount was paid in advance before start of function, but no receipt was given by OP. On 19.01.2013 at 4.45 pm, when marriage function was going on, white bag of wife of the complainant was found missing containing gold ornaments of 15 grams and 108.5 grams, mobile and Rs.7000/- in cash. FIR No.9 dated 20.01.2013 was lodged about this matter at police station Meharban by the complainant. Due to non-arrangement of CCTV camera and deficiency in service on the part of OP in the report, the above-referred loss took place to complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OP to pay Rs.5 lac as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the point of admission stage. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum dated 08.05.2013, the complainant now appellant preferred this appeal against the same.

4.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as none appeared for respondent before us in this appeal.

5.      We have examined the pleading of the complainant and evidence on the record. The complainant is aggrieved by theft of white colour bag containing ornaments of his wife in the resort of the OP. We find that criminal case of theft has been registered regarding theft of the bag. We are primarily to determine, whether consumer case is involved in this case, which is cognizable by Consumer Forum or not. The document dated 25.08.2012 has been examined by us. This document has also recorded terms and conditions of the arrangement. Nothing has been recorded in it that that OP is liable to pay the amount for loss by means of theft. Clause 18 of terms and conditions of document 25.08.2012 lays down that concerned party shall be responsible for their own goods. FIR no.9 dated 20.01.2103 has been registered about this theft at police station Meharban. The complaint of wife of the complainant addressed to Deputy Commissioner Ludhiana is on the record. We find that the terms and conditions thereof clearly recorded that the party concerned shall be completely responsible for their goods and luggage. Consequently, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP in this case. The matter is basically triable in a criminal court as offender can be punished for theft. We agree with the findings of the District Forum that there is no cause of action against OP to file the complaint.

6.      As a result of our above discussion, we, thus, affirm the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 08.05.2013 under challenge in this case. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is ordered to be dismissed.

7.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.04.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

8.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                           (H.S GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

April  25,  2016                                                           

(ravi)