Delhi

North East

CC/6/2020

Sh. Kamal Nayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Ashish Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 06/20

 

		Sh. Kamal Nayan, S/o Late Triveni Singh, R/0 H.No. 72, Gali No. 2, Pocket 5, Sonia Vihar, Delhi 11009		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.	Mr. Ashish Kumar, Chief Manager of Le Diamond Banquet Hall,   Mr. Anil Kumar, Manager of Le Diamond Banquet Hall,   Both At: Le Diamond Banquet Hall, C-Block Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER:		09.01.2020 22.12.2023 16.02.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 30.08.2019 Complainant booked the marriage hall with Opposite Party No. 1 for his daughter’s marriage which was to be held on 27.11.2019. Complainant stated that the total amount for the banquet was Rs. 4,11,000/- which included food for 400 persons.Complainant stated the he did not receive the original bills at the time of booking. Complainant stated that during the marriage, firstly he allowed only 350 plates for serving the food to the guests. At around 10:15 p.m. waiter came and told that the plates were finished and now Complainant had to pay Rs. 50,000/- for more 50 plates and Complainant paid the  Rs. 42,000/-. Again around 11:00 p.m. waiter came and told that plates were finished and again Complainant had to pay Rs. 50,000/- and again Complainant paid Rs. 42,000/- for 50 plates and again at 11:30 p.m. waiter came and told that the plates were again finished and Complainant again had to paid  Rs. 50,000/- for more plates. Then Complainant visited the office of the Opposite Parties and asked to show the CCTV footage but Opposite Parties refused to show the CCTV footage and Complainant again paid Rs. 50,000/- to the Opposite Parties on gun point. Around 01:00 a.m. Complainant was told that he can only see the video footage of main gate. Complainant stated that he invited only around 325 persons in his daughter’s marriage but 525 plates were used. Hence, Opposite Parties falsely added 200 plates. Complainant stated that on 27.11.2019, the Opposite Parties forced the Complainant to pay Rs. 1,34,000/- and out of the said amount Rs. 12,500/- were returned by them to the Complainant on 29.11.2019. Still the Opposite Parties have to pay  Rs. 1,21,500/- to the Complainant. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 1,21,500/- which was extra paid by the Complainant. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed their common written statement. It is stated that the complaint filed by the Complainant is false. It is stated that the Complainant booked the marriage hall with Opposite Party    No. 1 and accordingly Opposite Party No. 1 raised tax invoice and received     Rs. 59,000/- from the Complainant. It is stated that the other items like catering/food, decoration etc. were held independently from outsource with the consent of the Complainant. It is stated that the bill raised are legitimate and the same are based on the plates used by the guests. It is stated that there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is denied that the Complainant was forced to pay Rs. 1,34,000/- on 27.11.2019. It is prayed the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed common rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. In order to prove their case, Opposite Parties have filed their affidavit wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that he had booked a banquet hall for the marriage of his daughter. The booking was made for food for 400 persons for a sum of Rs. 4,11,000/- including the ground floor banquet hall. The marriage was to be solemnized on 27.11.2019. His case is that the Opposite Parties has falsely charged the charges for 200 plates. His case is that the Opposite Parties have forced him to pay additional sum of Rs. 34,000/- and he paid the said amount to the Opposite Parties under force. His case is that out of the said amount, the Opposite Parties have returned him Rs. 12,500/- and still the Opposite Parties have to pay him Rs. 1,21,500/-. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Parties is that the marriage hall was booked and tax invoice was issued for a sum of Rs. 59,000/-. The other items like catering/food, decoration etc. were held independently from outsource. The case of the Complainant is that he had paid Rs. 4,11,000/- but he has not produced any receipt for such payment even he has not shown his bank statement from where he had withdrew the said amount despite the fact that the Complainant has stated in his complaint that he had to give information to the tax department regarding the expenditure. It is also the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have charged the payment of 200 plates which were in fact not consumed by the guests. The case of the Complainant is that at the most there were 325 guests who have taken the food. The Complainant has not led any cogent evidence in this regard. He has not even filed the affidavit of his family member or some other relative who has attended the marriage in order to prove that only 325 persons have taken food in the marriage.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove his case. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
8. Order announced on 16.02.2024.

 

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)          Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President