West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/72/2014

SRI KALYAN MUKHERJEE, S/O. LATE BISWANATH MUKHERJEE. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SECRETARY, SIEMENS EMPLOYEE CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SWETA DUTTA.

23 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _72_ OF ___2014__

 

DATE OF FILING : 25.2.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 23.6.2015__

 

Present                         :   President       :  

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT                :   Sri Kalyan Mukherjee, s/o late Biswanath Mukherjee of 60, B.L. Hati Road,

                                               Town P.S. District-Burdwan.

 

• VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                             :   1.     Secretary, Siemens Employee Co-operative  Credit Society Ltd.                              43, Shanti pally, Rash Behari E.M. Bye Pass Connector, Kolkata – 42, P.S. Kasba.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

            The case of the complainant in precise as follows.

            The complainant Sri Kalyan Mukherjee is a resident of 60, B.L. Hati Road and is an employee of LICI , with family consisting of his wife and two daughters who are teen aged. The complainant to spend his summer vacation in 2012 decided to have a pleasure tour at Kalimpong and Gangtok for enjoying the holidays with his family. The complainant accordingly in April, 2012 lodged/booked a guest house named as Cristal Palace at Gangtok by advance hotel booking. The complainant during his stay at Gangtok was eager to get confirmed booking to avoid any trouble there  for accommodation. The complainant accordingly made booking of deluxe view room in the said guest house of O.P for three days i.e. from 24.5.2012 to 26.5.2012. The O.P for such advance booking accepted a  sum of Rs.2500/- as advance against the total rent of Rs.4500/- @750/- per day per room for two rooms and the O.P issued a receipt being no.1346 dated 26.4.2012. The booking was done by one Rajat Chakraborty of the O.P on 26.4.2012 although no booklet containing the terms and rules of booking or cancellation thereof was handed over to the petitioner nor the same was printed on the reverse side of the slip as ordinaryly occurs. The complainant was told that the rest payable amount should be paid at the guest house at the time of check out. For the said scheduled programme the complainant and his friend along with family started for Gangtok via Kalimpong on 21.5.2012 and stayed there till 24.5.2012 morning. When the complainant started for Gangtok from Kalimpong he got a phone call from the said Rajat Chakraborty on 24.5.2012 and came to learn that his booking of rooms was cancelled without assigning any reason. However, reaching in Gangtok the complainant faced tremendous trouble in getting accommodation as due to very rush in peak season hotel rooms were not available and had to move from one hotel to another. On very first day they stayed at “Tulip Residency” on 24.5.2012 and at “Norphel Guest House” on 25^th and 26^th May, 2012 for which O.P is responsible. The complainant under registered post sent legal notice for such illegal harassment and cancellation of booking without any reason but Mr. Chakraborty rang up to the petitioner admitting their fault and told for settlement, which has not yet been done. The complainant claims reliefs as under.,

1.  Refund of Booking amount of Rs.2500/-.
2. Refund extra payment made for hotel accommodation at Gangtok (Rs.7800-Rs.4500)= 3300/-.
3. Mental pain and agony of Rs.50,000/-
4. Litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

The O.P in his written version has stated that it is not a profit making organization by allotting holiday homes but it runs the management of holiday homes of different places for the welfare and interest of its members to provide accommodation to its members during tour and travel at a cheaper rate. The petitioner never had any interest to manage and run the holiday homes on a profit making view. Generally the O.P takes booking for holiday home rooms for its members or on the basis of recommendation of the members and the employers of the Siemens rooms of hotels on different places which are also provided to the outsiders on the basis of their request on a cheaper rate and accordingly this complainant applied for two rooms and was allotted two rooms at Gangtok from Holiday Home agreeing to pay the rate payable to the concerned hotel . Subsequently the complainant did not allot their two rooms to any third party in the same date for his profit but those two rooms were reserved subject to payment of balance amount for three days. The society charged Rs.4500/- and out of which Rs.2500/- was paid to the society and as per his request society allowed to pay him balance amount of Rs.2000/- to the society before starting his journey which  was not complied by the complainant and accordingly the complainant  cannot seek for any relief without paying entire rent for room to the society. Actually due amount was to be paid to the O.P within 23^rd May 2012 which was not paid and accordingly the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Further the case should have been filed before the Registrar of Co-operative Society for recovery of money, as it runs under Co-operative Society. There is a bar to file any complaint case against the Co-operative Society in the Consumer Forum as per West Bengal Co-operative Society Act, 2006 and Rules 20911 which was effected from 18.1.2011.

            The complainant has submitted evidence on affidavit and reservation slip, advance payment receipt of Rs.2500/- , bills of Tulip Hotel and Norphel Guest House.

1. Whether this is adjudicable by this Forum?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not?

 

Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken together for the sake of convenience.

            On going through the statements and records of both parties it is seen that the complainant made an advance booking at Cristal Palace at Gangtok from 24.5.2012 for three days with departure on 27.5.2012 and paid an amount of Rs.2500/- which was duly received by the O.P . No terms and conditions is mentioned on the said bill advance i.e. reservation slip. The cancellation of the said booking was done on 24.5.2012 morning over phone by the O.P when the complainant was in tour on way to Gangtok from Kalimpong and complainant had to face immense trouble to get reservation elsewhere. The O.P has not specifically stated any reason for cancellation of booking but has alleged that due to non-payment of balance amount, the said booking was cancelled which is never mentioned in the advance pay slip nor there is any indication that the complainant was informed regarding type of final payment. So, prima facie this case is fit for relief keeping in mind the trouble faced by the complainant.

            But the Ld. Advocate for the O.P cited and pointed out that the complaint case is not maintainable in this Forum and also this complaint case is barred by limitation and to get any order/releaf against the O.P herein the complainant had to file dispute case before the Registrar of Co-operative Society, West Bengal as per provision of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 with effect from 18.01.2011. As per section 102 of the said Act any dispute consent of the management or affairs of a co-operative society shall be filed before the Registrar for settlement of the dispute between any persons having transaction with it or between a co-operative society and it financial Bank. As per section 102(5) of the said Act any dispute to be filed before the Registrar shall be made in writing to be called the plaint and shall be filed in such manner and form as many prescribed . As per section 102(4) of the said Act any Civil Court or any Consumers dispute Redressal Forum shall not have any jurisdiction to try any dispute as mentioned in sub section 1.

            In this regard we are of the opinion that the complainant is not an employee of the O.P as well as he is not member of Siemens Employees Co-operative Credit Society and the relation between the complainant and the O.P is not covered by the relation as mentioned in the section  102 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006. Thus the instant  case does not attract Section 102 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act and therefore this Forum is not debarred by sub section (4)  read with section (1) and (2) of the West Bengal Co-operative Society Act.

            Moreover, complainant paid Rs.2500/- as advance towards the total consideration of Rs.4500/- (room rent) to the O.P . O.P in the ‘reservation slip’ (Annexure 18 of the complaint) mentioned that Rs.2500/- was received as advance booking of two rooms for three days ,where date of arrival and date of departure are mentioned respectively on 24.5.2012 and 27.5.2012. Therefore, the complainant is “Consumer” and the O>P is “service provider” as per meaning and definition under section 2(1)(d)(ii) and 2(1)(o) of the C.P Act, 1986 respectively.

            In the light of the above discussion we hold that the instant case is  adjudicable by this Forum.

            After going through minutely the complaint , the written version and all other documents brought before this Forum and hearing minutely from the parties, it is beyond doubt that even after paying Rs.2500/- to the O.P as advance payment for room booking at Holiday Home of the O.P at the Gangtok, the complainant along with his family and friends was deprived from availing two rooms for three days at O.P’s holiday home for which complainant had to face tremendous harassment and mental agony and considerable monetary loss. The O.P virtually has admitted the aforesaid fact. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P was duty bound to give accommodation in their holiday home. Though, ld. Advocate for the O.P has submitted that in accordance to the O.Ps policy, an intending boarder is supposed to pay the full amount chargeable for their entire stay in the O.P’s office at Kolkata before availing the service. But the O.P could not produce even a scrap of paper before this Forum to substantiate this contention.

            Therefore, we are strongly of the opinion that the O.P has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant/consumer and liable to pay back the amount to him received as advance and also to heavily compensate the complainant foe  physical harassment and tremendous mental anxiety and agony.

            Thus both the points are discussed and both are in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant case succeeds.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P with cost .

The O.P is directed to pay back Rs.2500/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation due to harassment, financial loss , tremendous mental agony and anxiety faced by the complainant due to inaction and deficiency in rendering services of the O.P towards the complainant.

O.P is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation cost .

All the above orders should be complied by the O.P within 30 days from the date of this order ,failing which, Rs.50/- per day is payable by the complainant after the stipulated period.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                              

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P with cost .

The O.P is directed to pay back Rs.2500/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation due to harassment, financial loss , tremendous mental agony and anxiety faced by the complainant due to inaction and deficiency in rendering services of the O.P towards the complainant.

O.P is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation cost .

All the above orders should be complied by the O.P within 30 days from the date of this order ,failing which, Rs.50/-m per day is payable by the complainant after the stipulated period.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member