Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/303/2023

SWATI CHATTERJEE - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE HOTEL MOUNT VIEW - Opp.Party(s)

JAGTEJ SINGH KANG

15 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	303 of 2023
Date  of  Institution	:	26.05.2023
Date   of   Decision	:	15.10.2024

 

 

 

 

1.  Swati Chatterjee aged about 59 years w/o Ashish Kumar Chatterjee r/o E132, Ground Floor, Sushant Lok 3, Sector 57, Gurgaon, Haryana.

2.  Rajiv Mohan Behl aged about 57 years s/o Rajinder Kumar Behl r/o House No.1022, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

             … … … Complainants

 

Versus

 

1.  The Hotel Mount View (A Unit of CITCO), Sector 10, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

2.  Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Limited (CITCO) having its registered office at SCO 121-122, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its General Manager.

3.  M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO 127-128, Sector 17-C, 4^th Floor, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

   … … … Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA,     MEMBER

 

Argued by:    Sh.Jagtej Singh Kang, Counsel for Complainants.

Sh.Raman B Garg, Counsel for OP No.1 & 2 along with Sh.Mayang Garg, Advocate.

Sh.Madan Lal Chaudhary, Counsel for OP No.3.

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant No.2 booked 5 rooms with OP No.1 Hotel for his daughter’s marriage with the son of complainant No.1. For the wedding ceremony, the complainant No.1 and her husband checked into the hotel on 19.05.2022 and they were given Room No.244, which was booked by complainant No.2 and one magnetic key card was also issued to them. The complainant No.1 had asked for a locker in her room in order to keep her jewellery safely but the OP No.1 Hotel was unable to provide the same.

    It is stated that wedding ceremony was held on 21.05.2022 at the Banquet Hall of OP No.1 Hotel, therefore, the complainant No.1 and her husband left the room at 8.30 PM. The festivities went on late till the night and the complainant No.1 return to her room with her husband at around 2.15 AM on the next day i.e. 22.05.2022. It is stated that in the morning at around 7 AM, when the complainant No.1 started packing, she noticed that one of the jewellery bag which was locked away was empty and the articles in the bag were missing. Complaint was made to the hotel management and CCTV footage on the intervening night of 21.05.2022 & 22.05.2022 was reviewed. In CCTV footage, a man wearing clothes similar to that of the hotel staff, wearing a black cap, approached the reception of OP No.1 Hotel and took a duplicate magnetic key card without tendering any identification proof and then entering room No.244 with the use of the same key and after sometime exit the room with a bag in his hands. It is stated that original key was with the complainant No.1; hence, due to the negligence on the part of Hotel staff, theft had taken place. A police complaint was also filed. It is stated that articles which were lost in the theft were 2 gold sets, 1 pair of gold earring, 1 gold men’s ring and cash of Rs.1,30,000/-, thus, the total amount of the theft was Rs.6,80,000/-. When no action was taken either by the Hotel Staff or the Police, complainant No.2 had written e-mails to the OP No.1, who in reply gave a copy of the House Rules to the complainant pointing out that they bear no responsibility for any loss of the customer.

    It is further stated that after much deliberation the hotel management accept negligence on their part and wrote to their Insurer/OP No.3 Insurance Company to release the claim amount but the insurer refused to make any payment stating that the incident was not covered under the policy. The OP No.1 in turn refused to compensate the complainants as their insurer refused to pay the claim amount. In this manner, the aforesaid act of OP No.1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present consumer complaint has been filed by complainants seeking amount of Rs.6,80,000/- as compensation for the theft along with interest; pay compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

2]       OP No.1 & 2 in their written version have denied that the complainant No.1 had ever asked for a locker in her room for any purpose and it is denied that the Hotel was not able to provide locker for safety of jewellery. It is also denied that the alleged man is wearing clothes similar to the Hotel staff. It is submitted that the alleged person approached the receptionist with correct details of room of the complainant No.1 and introduced himself as a Guest of the room. The alleged person asked for duplicate magnetic key by informing the receptionist that he left his key inside the room. The receptionist verified the details of the room and the name of the guest in the computer and found the same to be correct; accordingly the receptionist issued the duplicate magnetic key to the alleged person as per protocol. It is stated that the Hotel never accepted any responsibility for the alleged loss of the complainants nor ever admitted that there was any negligence on the part of its staff.

    It is pointed out by OP No.1 & 2 that complainants are yet to pay a sum of Rs.1,11,547/- outstanding against them as balance amount of banquet charges (Rs.79,031/-) and balance amount of room charges (Rs.32,516/-) and these facts are not disclosed by the complainants in their complaint. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service, OP No.1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.

3]       OP No.3 in its written version has stated that OP No.3 had issued Public Liability Insurance Non-Industrial Risk Policy for the period 01.09.2021 to 31.08.2022 to Chandigarh Industrial & Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. subject to certain terms and conditions, exceptions/exclusions etc. of the policy of insurance. It is stated that on receipt of the information from OP No.1 & 2, OP No.3 scrutinized the claim and found that the claim   does not fall within the definition of the accident and within the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs as made in their written version.

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

6]       We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

7]       The main issue which is to be decided by this Commission is whether complaint regarding the “Act of Theft” is deficiency in service or not? and whether complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not?

8]       In order to find out answer to these questions, the following facts & circumstances are required to be discussed:-

         The case of the complainants is that 5 rooms were booked by complainant No.2 at Hotel Mount View, Sector 10, Chandigarh, for the purpose of marriage of his daughter with the son of complainant No.1. The wedding ceremony was held at the Banquet Hall of the said Hotel on 21.05.2022 at 8.30 PM. It is alleged that room No.244 was allotted to complainant No.1 in the hotel where due to the connivance and negligence of the hotel management staff, theft of her gold jewellary and cash took place. The contention of the OP No.1 & 2 is that the safe deposit lockers were available in the front office to ensure safety of valuables of guests and this information has been duly provided in Clause No.5 of terms and conditions of the House Rules (Annexure C/11 colly). The complainant No.1 had neither handed over/entrusted the jewellery and cash to the hotel management and had kept her valuable unattended against the House Rules, hence, the complainant had failed to take reasonable care to keep her jewellery / valuables/cash safe and secure. The relevant clause No.5 of the terms and conditions of the Agreement/House Rules under which rooms are permitted to be used by guests, are reproduced as under:-

         “5. Visitors Belongings:

For the convenience of the visitors safe deposit lockers are available at the Front Office to ensure the safety of any valuables. Visitors are particularly requested to lock the door of their room when going out or when going to bed and not to leave key in the key hole, the company will not in any way whatsoever be responsible for the loss of residents goods or any other property not entrusted to the Management or for damage thereof whether due to neglect of hotel employees or agents or any other cause whatsoever including theft or pilferage”

9]       In the present complaint, there is specific allegation of theft and the matter is duly informed to the concerned police authorities. Further, police has registered an FIR bearing No.57, dated 22.05.2022 u/s 380 of I.P.C. at Police Station, PS North District Chandigarh. Complainants have relied upon judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court titled as “Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & ors.” decided on 14.11.2019, but the facts of this case are not applicable in the present case because in the present complaint complainant and service provider are not in the relationship of ‘Bailee’ and ‘Bailor’ as ‘Articles of Theft’ were never handed over to the OPs by the complainant. It is a case of theft wherein FIR was duly registered by Police Authorities.

10]      The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement titled as “Station Superintendent & anr. Vs. Surender Bhola” decided on 15.06.2023, 2023 Live Law (SC) 487, has held that if money is stolen from a passenger during train journey then complaint cannot be filed against Railway Department as deficiency of the service on the part of the Railways and they set aside the concurrent finding of District, State and National Consumer Commission and allowed the appeal filed by the Department of Railways through its Station Superintendent. Further, the Honble Supreme Court of India said, “We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible”.

11]      In view of the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, ‘Act of Theft’ cannot be held deficiency in service. Therefore, this consumer complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against the OPs. For the reason stated herein, this consumer complaint is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

12]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules 2020 & Act 2019 respectively. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15.10.2024                                                      

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA)

MEMBER

as