DATE OF DISPOSAL: 19.07.2023
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant is a senior citizen and had retired from the IREL as a PRO. The marriage of his younger daughter namely Priyanka (bride), daughter of the complainant with Pankaj (bridegroom) son of Mrs Ritu and Mr. Ashok Jaisinghani. The complainant booked the rooms, and Foods under wedding package from 4th December 2021 to 7th December 2021 with the O.P. by depositing of Rs.1,00,000/- on 1st August 2021 and 2nd August 2021 and the same was acknowledged by O.P. and for which the O.P. has issued an email from nd August 2021. For the purpose after booking of the hotel for the scheduled date by transferring the amount, the complainant has discussed with O.P. about all facilities for wedding ceremony on 4th August 2021 and to that effect the O.P. has issued printed proposals with terms and conditions ‘Wedding discussion with Mr. Patro’ dated 04.08.2021 to the complainant without seal and signature of their hotel. Again on 11th November 2021 the O.P. issued another acknowledgement regarding ‘ Advance Received against 5th December and 6th December wedding 2021 for Rs.5,00,000/- dated 10.11.2021through email th December 2021 at the Opposite party’s hotel. During the wedding ceremony busy, the O.P. has taken some signatures of the complainant in certain bills without explaining any shorts of information and in good faith the complainant has signed the bills produced by the O.P. On 7th December 2021 after lunch the complainant and his family members have checked out the hotel rooms of the O.P. Prior to check out the hotel, the complainant cleared as per bill produced by the O.P. without verification but the O.P. has not issued any clearance of bills to the complainant to that effect. After repeated approach by the complainant through emails in different dates, the O.P. has issued detail bills to the complainant. Objecting the bills under Annexure-E series of the O.P. the complainant has issued a notice through email on 04.02.2022 to refund the amount which was taken in excess from him and wherein the complainant submitted the discrepancies made in bills under different heads of the account and violation of the terms and condition of the second mutual understanding dated 20.11.2021. There are discrepancies in bill is around Rs.2.00 lakhs. For the purpose, the complainant and his family members have used MLC Rooms @Rs.5500/-+Tax for 18 persons, Wind chimney Rooms @Rs.7500/-+Tax for 48 persons and Mill Pond @Rs.15000/-+Tax for 3 persons in between 4th December 2021 and 6th December 2021. But the O.P. has charged in following manners to the complainant and charged excess amount violating the contracts and till date not refunded even after several approaches made through emails and other reasonable means:-
Table-1: The Discrepancies in billing.
Sl No. | Description | Negotiated Rate as per contract | Billed with Rate | Bill No. |
1 | MLC Rooms | 5500+Tax | 7500+ Tax | |
2 | Food Charges- 4th Dec, 2021 | 3200+ Tax | 3400 +Tax | 130 |
3. | Food Charges- 5th Dec, 2021 | 3800+ Tax | 4000+Tax | 131 |
4 | Food Charges- 6th Dec, 2021 | 1200+ Tax (Lunch ) | 1300+Tax | 132 |
| | 2300 +Tax (Dinner ) | 2500+Tax | |
5. | Laundry Charges | 5000/- per day | 7000/-per day | 3597 |
6 | Food charged on 07.12.2021(Dinner) | All the members of the complainant left after launch hours | 18000+ Tax | 3594 |
7 | Miscellaneous charged without any supporting documents | | 6000 | |
8. | Room rent raised against room No.525 in the name of | | 25200 | 5022 |
Table-2: Variation in billing.
Bill No/Date | Room No. | Amount Billed | Amount as per contract | Room Type | Variation in Rs. |
4992 | 515 | 8400.00 | 6160 | MLC | 2240.00 |
4996 | 519 | 16800.00 | 12320.00 | MLC | 4480.00 |
4997 | 518 | 16800.00 | 12320.00 | MLC | 4480.00 |
5004 | 512 | 16800.00 | 12320.00 | MLC | 4480.00 |
5011 | 516 | 16800.00 | 12320.00 | MLC | 4480.00 |
5032 | 537 | 25200.00 | 18480.00 | MLC | 6720.00 |
5033 | 538 | 25200.00 | 18480.00 | MLC | 6720.00 |
5034 | 517 | 16800.00 | 12320.00 | MLC | 4480.00 |
5050 | 536 | 25200.00 | 18480.00 | MLC | 6720.00 |
5051- 5057 | Dormitory Charged | 7000.00 | | | 7000.00 |
5058 | Miscellane Ous Charged. | 6000.00 | | | 6000.00 |
5059- 5067 | Dormitory Charged | 9000.00 | | | 9000.00 |
Total variation amount in billing is Rs.66800/- |
Table-3: Variation in Billing
Bill Date | Particular | No.of plates | Amount billed | Amount as per contract | Variation in Rs. |
04.12.2021 | Lunch & Dinner | 20 | 3400.00 | 3200.00 | 200.00 |
05.12.2021 | Lunch & Dinner | 67 | 4000.00 | 3800.00 | 200.00 |
06.12.2021 | Lunch | 75 | 1300.00 | 1200.00 | 100.00 |
| Dinner | 75 | 2500.00 | 2300.00 | 200.00 |
07.12.2021 | Dinner | No Guest | 21240.00 | | 21240.00 |
| Laundry Charges | | 7000.00 | 5000.00 | 2000.00 |
Total variation amount in billing | 23940.00 |
In view of the Table 1 to 3 there is huge variation in billing which was very much breach of contract made between the parties. It is an unfair trade practice rendered by the O.P. Due to non-refunds of the amount by the O.P. till date, the complainant is in constraint to knock the door of this respected Commission. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to refund the entire excess amount charged under Table 1 to 3 with delayed interest @18% per annum till the date of actual payment, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-in the best interests of justice.
3. Notice was issued to the O.P. but he neither appears nor filed any written version. Hence the O.P. is set exparte on dated 29.05.2023.
4. To substantiate his case the complainant has filed affidavit in support of his case.
5. On the date of exparte hearing of consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant is present. We heard argument from the counsel for the complainant. We perused the complaint petition, evidence, and documents placed on the case record.
6. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that though opportunity was given to the O.P to defend the case but he failed to do so. As such taking the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration it is presumed that the complainant’s contention is true.
7. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.P. is negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
In the result we direct the Opposite Party to refund variation amount in billing Rs.90,740/- together with 9% per annum to the complainant within 45 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interests per annum till its actual date of realization and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realisation of all dues.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 19.07.2023
