DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.1126 of 2009

       Sri Sudhir Pandey,

       S/o Sri K.N. Pandey ,

       R/o 3/305, Vivek Khand,

       Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                 Saubhagyam Guest House,

                 Through Proprietor,

                 5/34, Vishal Khand,

                 Captain Manoj Pandey Chauraha,

                 Gomti Nagar, Thana Gomti Nagar,

                 Lucknow.                                                                                                                                                        .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of deposited amount of Rs.30,000.00, compensation for deficiency in service of Rs.15,000.00, compensation for mental and financial loss of Rs.2,00,000.00, cost of notice of Rs.2,000.00 and Counsel fees of Rs.11,000.00 totalling Rs.2,58,000.00 with 6% interest.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that the Complainant had booked OP guest house for his son’s mundan ceremony for which the Complainant was told by the OP that the rent of guest house is Rs.30,000.00 which was paid by the Complainant to the OP but the OP only issued a receipt of Rs.17,000.00. On enquiry, the Complainant was told by the OP that the OP only issue receipt for rent of guest house and Rs.13,000.00 was taken for electricity, AC etc. for which no receipt is issued by the OP. The Complainant had booked OP guest house with the facility of AC. On the day of occasion

-2-

i.e. 03.10.2008 the Complainant and his relatives were not satisfied with the services of OP as OP did not provide the facility of AC and other facilities which was told to the Complainant at the time of booking. When the Complainant asked the OP to give the facility of AC then the Complainant was told that the facility of AC was given to the Bata Sale. At the time of booking the OP had booked their entire guest house for the Complainant and also assured that on 03.10.2008 the aforesaid guest house is vacant for the occasion but on 03.10.2008 the hoarding of Bata sale was still lying on the wall of the guest house which caused confusion to the relatives of the Complainant and the OP was not provided the facilities which were promised at the time of booking. Thereafter the Complainant asked the OP to refund his amount of booking but to no avail. Then the Complainant sent a registered notice dated 20.02.2009 through advocate to the OP. The aforesaid act of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of the OP caused harassment to the Complainant, hence this complaint.

          The OP has filed the WS on the affidavit of Sunita Siddharth Shankar wherein it is mainly submitted that the Complainant had merely booked the hall for the function and the same was booked for Rs.20,000.00 not for Rs.30,000.00 out of which the Complainant had paid only Rs.17,000.00. The Complainant in his legal notice dated 20.02.2009 has admitted that he had received receipts for Rs.20,000.00 but in his complaint has alleged that he had only received receipts of Rs.17,000.00 (Rs.1,70,000.00 appears to be wrongly typed) for the function. The notice received by the OP under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was misplaced due to renovation work conducted in her office but it reveals something else as the Complainant had admitted to have received the receipt of Rs.20,000.00. It is evident from the receipt that the complete guest house was not booked but merely a hall was booked for the function. It is further submitted that receipt has been given to the Complainant

-3-

against the amount paid by him. The Complainant had not paid the complete sum of Rs.20,000.00 so handing over a receipt of Rs.20,000.00 does not arise. The Air Conditioner of the hall was properly working. No air condition facility was provided to the ‘Bata Sale’. The guest house in question comprises of one large basement hall, one hall at the first floor of the guest house, one big lawn and 6 luxurious bedrooms. It is clear from the cash receipt that merely the hall was booked for the occasion. It was communicated to the Complainant on the date of booking i.e. 05.09.2008 that the Bata Sale will be organized from 21.09.2008 to 15.11.2008 except on 2.10.2008 and 03.10.2008. At the time of booking the OP clearly organized that all temporary hoardings and banner will be removed except those involving a lot of man power and time. The Complainant was adamant on providing a room for consumption of liquor to his friends and relatives which was denied by the OP. After the completion of the function it was the OP and his manager who asked for the payment of the balance amount of Rs.3,000.00 which was refused by the Complainant. There has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and she has been unnecessarily harassed by the Complainant on false, flimsy and untenable ground portraying incorrect facts. The instant complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

          The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 7 documents and 4 papers with the complaint.

          Heard Counsel for the Complainant but none was present from the side of the OP to argue the case. Perused the entire record.

          Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant booked a guest house of the OP by paying Rs.30,000.00 where as the OP had issued receipt for Rs.17,000.00 only or the same was booked for Rs.20,000.00 but the Complainant had paid only Rs.17,000.00 as is the contention of the OP. It is also to

-4-

be seen as to whether the OP did not provide satisfactory services such as AC etc. and that the vacant guest house was to be made available to the Complainant but the hoarding of Bata Sale was lying on the wall causing confusion as well as lowering the image of the Complainant in the eyes of the relatives in the function being organised by the Complainant at the guest house and thus the OP committed deficiency in service or the OP provided proper services to the Complainant and that they did not commit any deficiency in service.

          With regard to the point as to whether the Complainant booked the guest house at Rs.30,000.00 or for Rs.20,000.00, the contention of the Complainant is that he paid Rs.30,000.00 for the booking of the guest house for Mundan ceremony but he was given receipt for Rs.17,000.00 only on the ground that Rs.13,000.00 is spent on electricity, AC and for other services for which receipt is not given. This contention of the Complainant is opposed by the OP on the ground that the guest house was booked for Rs.20,000.00 only and the Complainant had paid only Rs.17,000.00, therefore the receipt for Rs.17,000.00 was given and the balance amount of Rs.3,000.00 was not paid by the Complainant. There appears to be some confusion regarding the receipt issued by the OP for the amount paid by the Complainant as the Complainant in his notice has stated that the OP had charged Rs.30,000.00 for the booking of the guest house whereas the receipt for Rs.20,000.00 was given to him. Now, here, the question arises as to when only a receipt for Rs.17,000.00 was given then how come the Complainant is mentioning in the notice that the OP had given receipt for Rs.20,000.00. Obviously, the receipt for the amount of Rs.20,000.00 shown in the notice is incorrect as the receipt for Rs.17,000.00 only was given by the OP. Now, while scrutinising the photocopies of the receipts, it transpires that in the receipt dated 05.09.2008 Rs.5,000.00 was paid on account of booking of hall rent of Rs.17,000.00 and thereafter

-5-

on 01.10.2008 a receipt for Rs.12,000.00 has been given on account of booking of hall for 03.10.2008. This makes it clear that only Rs.17,000.00 was to be given for the purpose of booking of the hall out of which Rs.5,000.00 was paid on 05.09.2008 as advance and thereafter final payment of Rs.12,000.00 was made on 01.10.2008 totalling Rs.17,000.00. The contention of the Complainant that he had paid Rs.30,000.00 but he was given receipt for Rs.17,000.00 on the ground that Rs.13,000.00 would be spent on electricity, AC etc. does not find support from any document and in that regard there is only a supportive evidence of the Complainant by the averments made in the affidavit but those averments are countered by the affidavit of Sunita Siddharth Shankar of the OP. Thus, under the circumstances, we do not find merit in the contention of the Complainant that Rs.13,000.00 were also paid in addition to Rs.17,000.00 or any merit in the contention of the OP that Rs.3,000.00 more was to be paid in addition to Rs.17,000.00.

          Now, we come to the next point as to whether the OP did not provide satisfactory services such as AC etc. and that the vacant guest house was to be made available to the Complainant but the hoarding of Bata Sale was lying on the wall causing confusion. The Complainant has taken the stand that in the Mundan ceremony for which the guest house was taken, the OP were organising the Bata Sale and even on the date of ceremony the hoarding of Bata Sale was found pasted on the walls whereby the Complainant’s relatives were confused. Besides the OP did not provide the facility of AC which also caused inconvenience to the guests. It is admitted by the OP that the Bata Sale was being organised from 21.09.2008 to 15.11.2008 except on 2.10.2008 and 03.10.2008 and that at the time of booking the OP had assured that all temporary hoardings and banners would be removed except those involving a lot of manpower in time. This gives

-6-

credibility to the statement of the Complainant that the Bata Sale was being organised and the hoardings were lying there in the hall where the function was being performed. The Complainant has also filed photographs to show that the banners and posters of the Bata Sale were pasted on the walls where the function was being organised and this could be seen from the photographs. Obviously, where a function for Mundan ceremony was going on it will definitely cause a lot of confusion as well as ridicule because of the banners and posters pasted in the hall where the function was being organised. The OP should have taken adequate care in removing those posters and banners and from the photographs it does not appear that the effort needed involved a lot of manpower and time. The posters and banners could be easily removed which could have saved the Complainant from inconvenience, confusion and ridicule. With regard to the contention of the Complainant that AC facility was not provided to the Complainant and his guests, it is interesting to note that it has not been specifically countered by the OP that they did provide AC facility to the Complainant in the hall. This gives credibility to the statement of the Complainant that no AC facility was provided by the OP as was promised to the Complainant, therefore the OP has committed serious deficiency in service in not providing AC facility in the guest house. Besides the OP also committed deficiency in service in not removing the banners etc. from the Guest House. The Complainant, therefore, is entitled to compensation for the aforesaid serious deficiency in service committed by the OPs. He is also entitled to adequate cost of the litigation as the case is lingering for the last about 6 years.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OP is directed to pay Rs.12,000.00 (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand only)

-7-

as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month. If the compliance of the order is not made within a month then the OP shall have to pay 9% on the entire amount due.

 (Rajarshi Shukla)          (Anju Awasthy)      (Vijai Varma)

        Member                         Member                      President

Dated: 12        May, 2015