Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

          Ld. Advocate for the appellant is present.

          The case is running ex parte against the respondents. None appears for the respondents.

          Heard the submission of the Ld. Advocate. Considered.

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order dt. 19.03.2015 in CC/486/2014 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata, Unit II dismissing the complaint case on contest, the appellant/ complainant preferred this appeal.

          The main grievance of the appellant is that the impugned judgment was not passed in accordance with law.

          The fact of the case made out before the Forum below is in short like that the complainant being an Advocate planned to visit Gangtok during Puja holidays during October-November, 2012 along with other families and they were in search for a hotel there. The complainant came to know from an advertisement published by the OP no. 1 that they had holiday home at Gangtok in Hotel Silver Fir and it was mentioned in the advertisement that there were 4 rooms in the said hotel and all the rooms were Kanchenjunga facing and the rent for the rooms was Rs. 550/- each per day and the rooms were well furnished with T.V. geyser etc. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the official website of the hotel Silver Fir and found the picture of the hotel and the rooms there. He came to know that there were all the basic amenities including 24 hours supply of hot and cold running water specially. The OP no. 5 is the Manager of the aforesaid hotel. OP no. 2 is the secretary of Tea Board holiday home committee. The OP no. 3 is the hotel Silver Fir and OP no. 4, Subhomoy Chatterjee also represented OP no. 3.  The complainant along with two other families decided to book three rooms in the said hotel from the OP no. 1. The complainant finally booked three rooms being no. 4, 5 and 11 for the period from 31.10.2012 to 03.11.2012 and the complainant paid Rs. 4950/- as booking charges for the said three rooms for three days @ Rs. 550/- per room per day and the complainant was assured by the OP no. 2 that all the three rooms booked by the complainant were Kanchenjunga facing and the hotel had facility at 24 hours supply of hot and cold running water. The complainant on 31.10.2012 at 4 P.M with two other families reached the OP no. 3/ Hotel and met the OP no. 4 and 5 who represented themselves as owner and manager of hotel and the complainant was provided with three rooms. The complainant was surprised to know only one room was Kanchenjunga facing and from the other rooms Kanchenjunga was not visible. According to him, the room no. 5 had only one window and the view of Kanchenjunga was not available from there and only a beauty parlour could be seen from there. The complainant reported the matter to the OP no. 4 and 5 ventilating their grievances, but, they replied that if the complainant felt uneasy with such rooms they might leave the hotel. The OP nos. 4 and 5 along with their staff reported the complainant that 24 hours running water facility was not available there. They also stated that water would be provided in the morning between 6 AM to 7 AM. If during the rest of the day the complainant desired to get water then the hotel staff would provide a bucket of cold water as and when  asked for. If the complainant asked for hot water then the complainant would have to pay for hot water @ Rs. 50 per bucket. The complainant came to know that the OP no. 4 and 5 with the hotel staff cunningly changed the room numbers and they allotted the Kanchenjunga facing rooms to other customers with huge boarding charges. When the complainant contacted OP nos. 1 and 2 over telephone then they did not entertain his complaints. So, complainant was under the impression that they were cheated. Finding no other alternatives, the complainant with the two families was compelled to stay in the said hotel. So, complaint sent a legal notice to the OPs on 09.09.2014 by way of speed post with A/D from G.P.O. asking them  to refund the entire booking amount within 15 days. But the OPs did not pay any heed to it. So, the complainant filed the case praying for compensation and refund of the amount. The OP no. 1 and 2 initially contested the case by filing W.V stating that the complainant booked the room as per their choice but they never induced the complainant to book the room. The OP no.2 never stated that the said book rooms had 24 hours hot water and cold water facilities.

          The complainant adduced his evidence by way of affidavit. But the OPs did not cross examine him by putting questionnaire. The OPs did not file any evidence. So, the oral evidence of the complainant was not challenged.

Now, the point for consideration is that:

Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any illegality?

It appears from annexure C at running page 32 of the Memo of Appeal that the complainant paid Rs. 4950/- as booking charges for room nos. 11, 4 and 5. It appears from the annexure B at page 30, 31 of the Memo of Appeal a document supplied by the hotel Silver Fir, that there shall be 24 hours supply of hot and cold running water. It appears from annexure A at the page 29 of the Memo of Appeal that the rate of rent was Rs. 550/- per room per day and the rooms were furnished with T.V. and Geyser.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant / complainant submitted that the number of rooms scheduled to be allotted to the complainant were secretly changed. In this context, she drew my attention to page no. 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 of the Memo of Appeal. But there are mere photographs of the opening door of the rooms.

          The evidence adduced by the compliant by way of affidavit was not challenged by the OPs. There was no cross examination by the OPs to that effect that the room numbers scheduled to be allotted to the complainant were not changed. There is oral evidence to the effect that the rooms allotted to the complainant were not Kanchenjunga facing and that evidence has not been challenged by the OPs by way of cross examination. The evidence by the complainant to the effect that they were not provided with 24 hours providing hot and cold water facilities for 24 hours was also not challenged by the OPs.

          It appears from the aforesaid discussion that the complainant is a consumer as he paid the booking charges and the facilities assured by the OPs as staged above were not provided with the appellant/ complainant. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

          For the aforesaid reasons the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and it should be set aside and the complaint should be allowed and appropriate relief should be awarded to the appellant / complainant. It will not be out of place to mention that the appellant/ complainant did not pray for specific compensation or reimbursement of specific legal expenses.  As the statue is for providing relief to the complainant so, I am of the view that the matter should be viewed liberally.

          Accordingly, the A/470/2015 is allowed ex parte against the Respondents with litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- payable to the appellant/ complainant. The impugned order is set aside. In consequence, the CC/486/2014 is allowed against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are jointly and/or severally directed to pay the appellant/ complainant Rs. 1238/- being the 25 % of the booking amount  in the form of compensation from the date of boarding i.e.  31.10.2012 along with interest @10% p.a. from that day within 90 days from this order, failing which, it shall carry interest on the awarded sum @10% p.a. till payment of entire amount.