West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/103/2018

Smt. Paramita Mardi, D/O- Matiar Mardi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Sarbani Chakraborty, C/O- Panchabati forest Resort - Opp.Party(s)

Kanai Dutta

31 Dec 2021

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of Rs.4,800/- + interest and  compensation Rs. 10,000/- + Litigation cost Rs. 5,000/-, Total amount = Rs. 19,800/-.

            The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant and her family members decided to visit Lataguri ( Dooars ) from 22.10.2018.to 25.10.2018 and for that the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 and as per advice of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant sent Rs.4,800/- by RTGS system from her account no. 36273861382 at State Bank of India, Kushmandi Branch i.e. Opposite Party No.2 to the account of the Opposite Party No.1 vide no.020801551734, IFSC code-ICIC0000208 of I.C.I.C.I Bank, Siliguri Branch on 01.09.2018 and the said amount has been deducted from the  account of the Complainant by State Bank of India  and thus, her booking was confirmed. On 22.10.2018 when the Complainant along with her family members went to the resort of the Opposite Party No.1and asked for room but the Opposite Party No.1 did not provide room to the Complainant saying that she did not receive any amount. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 to check and verify her account but the Opposite Party No.1 refused and denied to do so. In such compelling circumstances, the Complainant arranged another hotel at a high rate. After one day, the Opposite Party No.1 told over phone to the Complainant that she is ready to pay Rs.2,410/- or she can arranged another hotel for the Complainant. At the time of returning from Lataguri, the Complainant again visited the Opposite Party No.1 and asked for refund the amount but the Opposite Party No.1 denied and threatened the Complainant. The Complainant has further stated that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. Having received the booking amount the Opposite Party No.1 did not provide room to the Complainant. So, the Complainant has filed the instant case for relief as prayed in the plaint.

              Notice was duly served upon both the opposite Parties and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared before this commission and filed her written version. Whereas the Opposite Party No.2 did not appear before this Commission, So, the case is proceeded ex parte against the Opposite Party No.2.

 By filing written version, the opposite Party no.1 has denied the allegation of the Complainant and stated that the instant case has been filed for illegal gain. The Opposite Party has further stated that the Opposite Party No.1 wanted to refund the amount to the Complainant after deduction of the cancellation charge but the Complainant did not accept the same. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 hence, the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

           To prove his case, the complainant has filed 

 (i) Photocopy of Counter foil of State Bank of India for payment of Rs.4,802.95 Paise  in favour of ICICI, Bank by the Complainant (ii) one photocopy of cash memo of Banchaya Lodge (iii) Front page of Pass Book of State Bank of India in the name of the Complainant (iii) one computerized  copy of the Opposite Party No.1 mentioning her ICICI  a/c no. and other particulars sent by the Opposite Party No.1through mail (iv) one computerized copy mentioning  check in and check out details (v) one computerized copy of contact address of Panchvati Forest Resort.

              On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to file any document in support of her defense.

  In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration 

 

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 

         

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party?

 

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

 

         3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

              We have heard arguments by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. We have also gone through the written examination – in – chief and written arguments filed by both the parties as well as the documents produced by the Complainant.          

             At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint and submitted that the Complainant and her family members faced tremendous harassment due to the illegal treatment and behavior of the Opposite Party No.1. There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 so, the instant case should be allowed.    

             Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 was absent on the date of argument so, we heard argument by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant alone. 

             Before going into the merit of the case, we would like to mention dilatory tactics of the Opposite Party No.1 which compelled this Commission to heard argument in the absence of Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1. The record reveals that several opportunities  were given to the Opposite Party No.1 for argument but Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 did not appear on the date of argument. Keeping in mind that the instant case is an old one and the justice delayed is justice denied so, we heard argument by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant alone.                             

            Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

 

Point No. 1  

 

           On perusal of materials on record, it appears that the Complainant has booked a family room in Panchavati forest resort by sending a sum of Rs.4,800/- through RTGS and the Opposite Party No.1 accepted the proposal of the Complainant to provide her resort from 22.10.2018 to   25.10.2018. In such circumstances, it is crystal clear that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party under the provision of the C.P. Act, 1986 read with Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 

           Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

 

Point Nos. 2 & 3  

 

            Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.   

            It reveals from the money receipt of State Bank of India that a sum of Rs.4,800/- was sent by the Complainant in the account of  the Opposite Party No.1 lying in the ICICI Bank of Siliguri Branch. From the computerized receipt sent by the Opposite Party No.1 through mail to the Complainant it appears that one family room was booked and the date of Check in was 22.10.2018 and Check out was 25.10.2018. When the Complainant went to the resort of the Opposite Party No.1 on 22.10.2018 and asked for room but the Opposite Party No.1 denied to provide room to the Complainant saying that she has not received any amount. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 to check and verify her account but the Opposite Party No.1 refused to do so. Being compelled, the Complainant take a shelter in Banachaya Lodge by giving more amount of Rs.7,070/- than they previously arranged because it was a pick time. The receipt of Lodge Banachaya dated 24.10.2018 support this contention  of the Complainant. After one day of arrangementof another lodge by the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 told to the Complainant over phone that  she can make an arrangement in other hotel and she is ready to pay Rs.2,410/-. This proposal of the Opposite Party No.1 was denied by the Complainant saying that when you have received Rs.4,800/- then why the she  bear a loss of 50% without any fault but the Opposite Party No.1 refused to pay the total amount of Rs.4,800/- .  

               In her written version, in paragraph 13, the Opposite Party No.1 has admitted that she received Rs.4,800/- through RTGS system .In para-13 of written version and in para-14 of written notes of argument of the Opposite Party No.1, it has been alleged that it is true that the Complainant came to her resort on 22.10.2018 but not for residing but for getting back of her booking amount because the Complainant had  arranged another resort as per her choice so, the Opposite Party No.1 became agree  to return back her booking amount after deducting cancellation charge. This allegation of the Opposite Party No.1 is not believable because a person who booked family room in a resort one month ago he never arranged other resort after going to the spot giving more price in such a pick time. In the instant case, the Complainant booked resort for herself, her parents and two sisters . In other words it can be said that there was no young male members with the Complainant. To save her family from harassment and for the purpose of safety and security, the Complainant booked the resort one month ago. The allegation of the Opposite Party No.1 is unnatural and cannot be believed. Here, it is as true as day light that the Opposite Party No.1 has deprived the Complainant and her family members from providing family room in spite of receiving booking amount one month before. This conduct of Opposite Party No.1 shows gross negligence and deficiency in service on her part.

            In view of the above mentioned discussions, it is clear that the Complainant is a bona-fide consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 and there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.

             No relief has been claimed against the Pro-forma Opposite Party No.2.

 Accordingly, point no. 2 & 3 are decided in favour of the Complainant.

 

 

Hence, it is

                                                                        O R D E R E D

 

          That the Consumer Case No. 103 of 2018 is allowed on contest in part but with cost against the Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed against the Pro- forma Opposite Party No.2.

           The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to credit a sum of Rs.4,800/- along with an interest @ 8% p/a from 01.09.2018 ( Date of booking ) till the date of full realization in the account of the Complainant being a/c no.36273861382 at State Bank of India , Kushmandi Branch, IFSC-SBIN0001875 within 45 (forty Five) days from the date of passing of this order.. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to credit an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost in the said account of the Complainant failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order according to law.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.