Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in Consumer Complaint No.291/2007.
(2) Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:
The Respondent/original Complainant wanted to go to Mahabaleshwar from 18/05/2007 to 21/05/2007. The Respondent/Complainant approached to the original Opponent No.1 for booking and paid an amount of `14,221/- on 05/05/2007. As per the package provided by the Opponent No.1 to the Respondent/Complainant, the following facilities were included:
Super deluxe A.C. Room,
Lunch and Dinner for three days along with breakfast,
Indoor games, colour TV, intercoms,
Hot and cold water etc.
The Respondent/Complainant stayed in the hotel, however, the air-conditioner, colour TV, intercom, hot and cold water was not available as there was load shedding. Hence, the Respondent/Complainant had to suffer for these three days. Contending this as deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents , the Complainant had filed a consumer complaint praying to direct the Opponents to return booking amount of `13,900/-, compensation of `25,000/- for mental agony and inconvenience and cost of the complaint.
(3) The Opponents No.1 had contested the complaint by filing written version contending that whatever the amount paid by the Respondent/Complainant to them was transferred to the Opponent No.2 for which the Opponent No.1 is not responsible. Whatever, the deficiencies shown by the Respondent/complainant is in respect of services provided by the Opponent No.2, for which Appellant/Opponent No.1 cannot be held responsible and as there is no deficiency in service on their part the prayer in respect of them may please be dismissed.
(4) Opponent No.2 has filed written version challenging the complaint on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the Opponent No.2 and the Respondent/original Complainant. As there is no deficiency is service on their part they prayed that the complaint may please be dismissed.
(5) The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the Opponent Nos.1 and 2, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and pleadings of their Advocates had arrived at the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/original Opponent No.1 and partly allowed the complaint directing the Appellant/original Opponent No.1 to pay compensation of `5,000/-. Aggrieved by this order the original Opponent No.1 has filed this appeal.
(6) We heard Advocate Mr.Abhijit Rane, for the Appellant. The Respondents remained absent though duly served.
(7) Admittedly, the Respondent No.1/original Complainant had booked a Mahabaleshwar tour with w.e.f. 18/05/2007 to 21/05/2007 and paid an amount of `14,221/- to the Appellant. At the time of booking Appellant had agreed to provide certain amenities to the Respondent No.1/original Complainant, however, from the record available, it is seen that whatever the amenities were to be provided as per the assurances given by the Appellant have not been provided to the Respondent/original Complainant. As there is a direct contract between the Appellant and the Respondent/original Complainant, it is binding upon him to provide the amenities as promised. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant.
(8) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum has rightly passed the order. It is just and proper. We do not find any substance or merit in the appeal filed by the Appellant. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
Appeal is dismissed in limine.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 1st October, 2012.
