Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/599

S.C JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SGGS FAST FOOD & BANAUEAT - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments: 25.01.2016

Date of Decision:02.02.2016

Appeal No.599/10

 

(Arising out of the order dated 05.07.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.241/09 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-East, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

Shri S.C. Jain,

174, New Surya Kiran Apartment,

I.P. Extension,

Delhi-110092.                                                                 …..........Appellant

 

Versus

M/s. GGS Fast Food & Banquet,

C/o Asian Resorts,

D-87, 1^st Floor,

Lajpt Nagar-I,

New Delhi.                                                                                ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The complainant has come in the present appeal against order dated 05.07.2010 passed by District Forum-East in Complaint Case No.241/09. The respondent was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and financial loss if any. Respondent was also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation. According to complaint, the complainant booked premises of respondent for Sagai of his son with birthday party of her daughter-in-law and paid Rs.25,000/- as advance. He further paid Rs.1,40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- before commencement of the party, as per terms and conditions. Function was to start at 11:00 A.M. but respondent did not make any arrangement till 2:00 P.M. Even chairs were not provided in the hall.  The OP received amount for eight types of fruits and assured that five fruits will be imported fruits. But only four Indian fruits were provided and no imported fruit was provided. Ten stalls were assured but only five stalls were provided.  The OP agreed to provide decoration with imported and Indians flowers but nothing was done. Only 10 waiters were engaged as against 25+5 waiters to serve guests of the complainant.  The OP assured that he will not run the restaurant for others on that day but deliberately started the restaurant and provided food to outsiders @Rs.99/- per plate. OP assured to prepare food with pure ghee and not to use onion and garlic.  But food was prepared in edible oil and OP mixed other preparation which were not used on the previous day, with dishes to be served on that day. Thus, food provided to the guests of the complainant was stale. The whole food was prepared in onion and garlic.  Only 100 chairs were provided as against 200 chairs with round table. OP switched off the ACs as soon as the function started. Even the lights were disconnected during the function though it was agreed that generator would never be switched off.  It was agreed that function was to continue till 5:00 P.M. but servant of OP removed the chairs and carpet at 3:00 P.M. The OP started claiming Rs.1,75,000/- as against agreed sum of Rs.1,40,000/-.  The complainant had to make alternative arrangement of DJ.  Hence the complainant claimed refund of Rs.1,75,000/- paid by him and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

 

2. In written version, the respondent pleaded that complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- in all. He pleaded that complainant should not have paid Rs.1,75,000/- as alleged by him, if there was no arrangement. There is no mention of five imported fruits and four Indian fruits in the confirmation. The decoration was up to the mark which is evident from photos. Averments regarding 25+5 waiters were denied.  It denied to have served outsiders @Rs.99/- per plate.  The complainant was charged @Rs.300/- per person. It denied that onion and garlic was used or food was prepared in oil or that previous days preparations were mixed. The complainant was taking undue advantage of reduction in number of person from 200 to 100 which should have been intimated at least 5 days earlier from the date of party.  The complainant gave the intimation of reduction  in number of guests and arrangement was made accordingly. It pleaded that about 100 guests attended and complainant paid Rs.30,000/- as agreed. Decoration charges were given up as gesture of goodwill. Allegation of switching off AC and generator, removal of chairs and carpet were denied. Notice dated 03.03.2009 was duly replied on 17.03.2009 which complainant has concealed.  It denied that image/reputation of the complainant was tarnished.

 

3. The District Forum found that payment Rs.1,75,000/- was un-natural as the complainant had not intimated source from where complainant made the payment.  There was no authentic evidence that decoration and sitting arrangement was not up to the mark.  In reply to notice, OP had mentioned that he agreed to provide space and food only.  Other stalls were arranged by complainant himself. In reply to notice he had mentioned that he did not charge any amount for providing fruit and as such he did not provide any fruit.  But in written statement he mentioned that he provided fruits also. Thus, there was contradiction in the stand of OP.  There was deficiency in service.

 

4. In appeal, the contention of the appellant is that despite finding of deficiency in service by the OP, the District Forum has awarded meagre peanuts of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

 

5. The respondent did not turn up to contest the appeal.  It filed reply only land then started absenting.

 

6. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  The counsel for appellant drew out attention to the copy of the order form which is available at page-27.  The same shows total amount chargeable as Rs.1,40,000/- @ Rs.350/- + VAT per plate. The minimum guarantee was 200 persons meaning thereby that actual number of customers were likely to be more. It goes on to show that extra plate were to be charged @550/- net meaning thereby that it included VAT and service charges. The time of function was 10:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. – 5:00 P.M., snacks time was 11:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M., dinner timing was 2:00 P.M. The column of rates shows that booking was super deluxe menu, gate, stage, Hall Banquet, chairs and 30 drivers in lawn, fruit counter (8), 300 baloons and couple chair. If OP is to be believed that there was no agreement for fruits and complainant was to arrange stalls himself, it is not clear as to what is meant by Super Deluxe Menu.

 

7. Counsel for appellant submitted that complainant filed affidavit of his own, affidavit of Sh. Pawan Sharma, SCW-III who deposed that respondent did not make any arrangement till 2:00 P.M. though the function was to start at 11:00 A.M. Even chairs were not provided in hall, the respondent started service for others which was not permissible during the function, whole food was prepared with onion and garlic.  Respondent did not provide proper stage and ultimately arrangement was made by complainant of his own for DJ.  The complainant also filed affidavit of Sh. Avdhesh Chaubey as CW-IV who deposed that entire payment was made to the respondent in his presence.  The respondent did not make any arrangement till 2:00 P.M., respondent started service for others which was not permissible during function, food was prepared in edible oil, respondent mixed other preparations which were not used on the previous day due to which the food became stale and guests could not take proper food. He also spoke about alternative arrangement of DJ made by complainant. The District Forum did not deal with these affidavits.

 

8. The counsel for appellant also submitted that if order was for 200 persons only as claimed by respondent, there was no fun of mentioning minimum guarantee of 200.  Only inference which can be drawn is that booking was for more than 200 persons and even if the number of persons attending falls below 200, respondent would charge for 200 persons. Further mentioning that provision was made for extra plates go to show that complainant was expecting more than persons mentioned i.e. about 300. Similarly, rate of extra plate Rs.550/- net shows that rate of booking was around Rs.500/- per plate.  If rate was Rs.300/- per plate as claimed by respondent, there was no reason why extra plates were to be charged @550/- per plate.

 

9. The contention of the respondent that only 100 guests attended and it charged Rs.30,000/- @300/- per plate is demolished by the fact that minimum guarantee was of 200. Source of payment is not to be explained by the complainant.  It is matter of common knowledge that banquets do not issue receipt for the complete amount to avoid payment of service charges and VAT.  Again it is a matter of common knowledge that they obtain the payment before the commencement of the function.  So, plea of making payment contradicting the claim of deficiency also falls to the ground. The complainant could not know before hand that service would be poor or he should not make full payment.

 

10. The plight of persons arranging the function can be assessed well. His image is ruined in the eyes of guests who visit the party if there is no arrangement, chairs, ACs and food is stale.

 

11. We assess the loss of image by the complainant at moderate scale at Rs.1,00,000/-.  Accordingly, the OP is directed to refund Rs.1,75,000/- charged by him from complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.10,000/- within one month, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of this order to the date of payment.

 

12. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. One copy be sent to the District Forum for information.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

(S. C. Jain)Member

 

 

245.