Delhi

South Delhi

CC/88/2020

MAHENDER KUMAR AGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE IMPERIA HOTEL - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

 

Case No.88/2020

Mahender Kumar Agarwal

351, Sanskriti Apartments, Sec 19B,

Dwarka, New Delhi-110075

….Complainant

Versus

 

Mr. Alok Gupta, MD, The Imperia Hotel

417, M G Road Ghitorni, New Delhi-110030

 

        ….Opposite Party

    

 Date of Institution    : 21.07.2020      

 Date of Order            : 27.12.2022      

 

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

 

ORDER

Member: Sh. U.K Tyagi

 

1.      The Complainant has requested  to pass an award directing the  Sh. Alok Gupta, MD, Imperia Hotel (hereinafter referred to as OP) to refund the entire deposit amount of Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest @2% per month for 36 months i.e Rs.54,000/- plus additional interest for the duration  upto release of payment; Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for  mental pain/harassment, legal expenses etc (in total of Rs.1,79,000/-).

 

2.      The Complainant deposited Rs.75,000/- vide cheque No.000003 (Annexure-I) of HDFC Bank on 23.07.2017 for the marriage function of his daughter to be held on 04.12.2017. The OP provide a receipt ( Annexure II) of the above amount. The said marriage got cancelled and OP agreed to extend the date till 23.07.2018 vide their letter dated 15.11.2017 ( Annexure –IV). The Complainant met OP in the 3^rd week of July, 2018 and OP assured that he would accommodate the deposit for complainant’s daughter function in future. The Complainant and OP finalized the cost of marriage function on 26.02.2020 (Annexure V). The price so finalized was Rs.1750/- inclusive of all taxes etc per plate for a minimum guarantee of 150 persons. The OP refused to accommodate the deposit/advance on 06.12.2019 and finally refused to accommodate the deposit/ advance on 12.12.2019. The written agreement signed by both the parties, does not have any clause authorizing OP to forfeit the deposit amount. The complainant sent notice via email and Regd. Post on 08.12.2019. Complaint’s copy was received on 10.09.2020 OP was proceeded exparte on 20.12.2021. Exparte evidence was filed on 21.03.2022. But the written arguments were not filed despite opportunity was granted for filing the written submissions. Since, complainant in person was appearing on almost all dates so it was not insisted upon for filing the written submissions. The oral arguments were heard on 29.08.2022 and  concluded.

 

3.      This Commission has gone into the material placed on record. It is noted that the amount of Rs.75,000/- so deposited is duly acknowledged by the OP and receipt thereof was also given. Marriage function of the complainant’s daughter was to be solemnized   on  4.12.2017.  To this effect, contact letter dated 23.07.2017 was signed by both the parties. The said function on 04.12.2017 could not be held on account of cancellation of  marriage. The OP vide its letter dated 15.11.2017 had stated that the advance of Rs.75,000/- which was paid for the function, shall be adjusted in your upcoming function and  will be valid till 23.07.2018 (venue is subjected to availability).

 

4.      The said contractual letter dated 23.07.2017 did not speak about the treatment to be given to the advance. It only says that 25% advance at the time of the bookings remaining amount to be paid 3 days before the function date. It  is also noted that the OP had once accepted the deposit of other party and to be adjusted in future and only  condition was placed that the advanced/deposit to be valid upto 23.07.2018. The earlier marriage function date was 04.12.2017 and same was over. The contention of OP for the reservation of venue for 04.12.2017 was not pointed out by the OP and he had assured that the advance/deposit shall be adjusted in ensuing function of the complainant. In such circumstances, the OP has no sustainable ground not to honour the assurance given to complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Vibes Health Care Ltd. & Others Vs M/s Dakshina Illangovan dated 07.01.2015 has  held that “ the facts of these authorities are altogether different. The  consumer commission will not allow the service provider to grab the money like this….”

 

5.     The ratio of above mentioned case also applies here in the instant case. The intimation of cancellation of function was provided well in advance. The OP had assured the complainant to adjust same in ensuing functions. The OP gave the time-limit by which the said advance was valid. Later on, the OP refused to adjust the advance of Rs.75,000/- for the function to be held on 26.02.2020.

 

6.      Succinctly, after considering the fact and circumstances in the matter,  this Commission,  respecting the decision of Hon’ble National  Commission in the above mentioned case,  is of the considered view that OP is squarely deficient in service and is directed to refund the amount of Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest @4% p.a from the date of deposit within 03 months from the receipt of this order failing which rate of interest shall be levied @7% p.a till its realization.

File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.