Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/785/2017

Gurinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Rajiv Gupta, Proprietor, G.K. Resorts - Opp.Party(s)

Bhupinder Singh Gill

24 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/785/2017
Date of Institution	:	08/11/2017
Date of Decision	:	24/09/2018

 

Gurinder Singh S/o Sardar Trilochan Singh, R/o H.No.3296, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Rajiv Gupta, Proprietor, G.K. Resorts, Zirakpur – Kalka Highway, Opposite Sekhon Banquet, District Mohali, Punjab.

..… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Bhupinder Singh Gill, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Naren Pratap Singh, Vice Counsel for Sh. Dhananjay Singh, Counsel for Opposite Party.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the marriage of the son of the Complainant namely, S. Angad Singh was fixed on 10.04.2017, therefore, the Resort of the Opposite Party was booked for the night of 11.04.2017 on the occasion of Reception, for which the Complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Opposite Party. It has been averred that on 10.04.2017 due to sudden and unfortunate demise in the family, the function could not be held. Since all the ceremonies were came to halt, the Opposite Party was informed 32 hours before the function to cancel the booking. Thereafter, the Complainant met the Opposite Party a number of times for the refund of the booking amount, but to no avail.  Eventually, a legal notice dated 03.08.2017 was served upon the Opposite Party, which also did not fetch the craved results. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party filed its reply admitting the factum of booking of the Resort by the Complainant for 11.07.2017 and cancellation thereof. It has been pleaded that as per the terms & conditions of the booking, the Complainant would not be entitled to any refund in case of cancellation. Also, if the cancellation was not done 30 days prior to the function, the full amount was to be charged. Further, the Opposite Party would be entitled to the full consideration amount two days before the date of booking/ function. Hence, even if the case of the Complainant was to be believed in entirety, the Opposite Party is entitled to the full amount. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         In the present case, the fact regarding payment of advance/booking amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Opposite Party is an admitted one. It also has been admitted that due to sudden and unfortunate demise in the family of the Complainant, the function, for which the premises of the Opposite Party was booked in advance by the Complainant, could not be held, and the information to the Opposite Party regarding the aforesaid incident was sent 32 hours prior to the function to cancel the whole show/booking. 
8.         The sole grouse of the Complainant is that despite various requests, the Opposite Party did not refund the booking amount. Even the legal notice served upon the Opposite Party was not replied, which led to the filing of the present Consumer Complaint.
9.         The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that it is clearly mentioned in the terms & conditions that if the cancellation was not done 30 days prior to the function, the full amount was to be charged. Also, the Opposite Party would be entitled to the full consideration amount two days before the date of booking/function. Hence, Opposite Party is entitled to the full amount and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part.
10.         After perusal of the Complaint as well as the written statement of Opposite Party, it is crystal clear that the function had to be cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances on account of death of young daughter-in-law of Complainant’s elder brother. We are of the concerted opinion that the present case comes under the category of rarest of rare case being an ‘Act of God’, which was beyond the control of the Complainant and his family. Had this tragedy not taken place, there was no need to cancel all the events in the aggrieved family where hundreds of guests were invited from within the country and abroad to celebrate the function. 
11.         So far as the question of terms & conditions of the Opposite Party in the receipt of the advance issued by it is concerned, it nowhere covers the ‘Act of God’ & ‘Unforeseen Circumstances’ beyond human control and the terms & conditions are completely silent about the same. Therefore, the Opposite Party does not get any help therefrom.
12.         Hence, the act of the Opposite Party in flatly refusing to accede to the genuine request of the Complainant on humanitarian and extreme compassionate circumstances especially when the booking was cancelled atleast 32 hours before the function, certainly and definitely amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice, which certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation.  
13.         In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Party and it is directed as under:-

 

1. To refund the total advance/booking amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Complainant;
2. To pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

 

14.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [i] & [ii] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.  

 

15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
24/09/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”