D.O.F:31/08/2021
D.O.O:11/10/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.143/2021
Dated this, the 11th day of October 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Anantharama. P aged 54 years
Advocate
2nd Floor, Century Park Building
New Bus stand, Kasaragod : Complainant
And
The manager
Hotel Highway Castle
Nullipady Kasaragod : Opposite Party
Pin 671121, Kasaragod Taluk
(Adv: Pradeep Rao.M)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts in this case is as follows
The complainant is a leading lawyer in Kasaragod bar and the Opposite party is a hotel situated at Nullipady Kasaragod . The Opposite party along with Malayala Manorama news paper distributed pamphlets of Onasadya in their hotel at Nullipady by way of parcel and provided their phone numbers to call them in advance for booking. Attracted by these pamphlets the complainant contacted Opposite party through the number given in pamphlet to call them for advance booking. The complainant tried to contact Opposite party through the numbers given in pamphlets but none of the number is attended by Opposite party. On 18/08/2021 the complainant personally visited the counter of Opposite party to get the particulars of the Onasadya and for booking. At that time Opposite Party represented that one hour prior to the delivery of the food the booking can be done and informed the complainant to call them over phone. On 21/08/2021 at about 11.40 am the complainant contacted the Opposite party through his telephone number 04994 220570 from complainants mobile No: 7829740659 for onasadya parcel and they promised to deliver the food at the rate of Rs. 350/- per meal and advised the complainant to come at 1.00 pm to their hotel. So the complainant went to the hotel of the Opposite party at about 12.50pm to bring Onasadya parcel. But from the counter it was told that the token for meal is already over and no Onasadya to the complainant could be served. Though the complainant told them about their promise and his advance booking for the meals they told that the token is over and there is no meals. The Opposite party did not tell the complainant to take advance token or to make any advance payment at the time his personal visit. Believing the promise of supply of Onasadya by Opposite party, in the house of the complainant also no special food was prepared on 21/08/2021 for lunch. Hence due to non availability of Onasadya the complainant and his family had to eat the available items in their house on the very special day of the year, Onam. Which caused great mental agony, pain and sufferings to them. The Opposite party had shown deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice since the said day was an important day of the year, the acts of Opposite party caused much mental agony and pain to the complainant and his family. Hence the complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for pain and sufferings sustained to the complainant and his family from Opposite party.
Even though Opposite party made appearance through advocate Pradeep Rao, version is not filed in time. The complaint is filed on 31/08/2021 but version is not see filed till 30/10/2021. On 03/01/2022 the Opposite party advanced the case to file IA to receive the version. IA 1/2022 was allowed on condition that Opposite party shall pay Rs. 500/- as cost to the complainant. But the opposite party failed to comply the order so no version recorded. Against the order opposite party filed RA which is dismissed The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the pamphlet produced by the complainant is marked as Ext A1. The complainant is cross examined by the counsel of Opposite party. The issues raised for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party in not providing Onasadya parcel to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience issues no’s 1 to 3 can be discussed together.
The Opposite party along with Malayala Manorama daily news paper distributed the pamphlets to the complainant and others canvassing the arrangement of Onasadya in their hotel at Nullipady by way of parcel and provided their phone numbers to call them for advance booking. Even though the complainant tried to contact Opposite party through the given phone numbers in the pamphlets, none of the phone was attended by Opposite party. So the complainant personally visited the counter of Opposite party to get the particulars of Onasadya and the items and the way of booking. It is informed that one hour prior to the delivery of food the booking can be done. And the Opposite party advised him to call them over phone. Since the said day is an important day of the year the complainant contacted Opposite party at about 11.40 am. The Opposite party promised him to deliver the food for Rs. 350/- per meal and advised the complainant to come at 1pm. So the complainant went to the hotel of Opposite party at about 12.50 pm to bring the Onasadya parcel. But from the counter it was informed that the token for meals is already over and no Onasadya to the complainant could be served. Though the complainant told them about their promise and advance booking it is said that the token is already over and there is no meals. Believing the assurance of Opposite party of the lunch as Onasadya already booked, no special food is prepared in the house of the complainant on 21/08/2021 for lunch. Hence the complainant’s family was constrained to eat the available items in their house, caused great mental agony and insult to the complainant. The complainant had witnessed some of the other customers also complaining in the counter about not getting the Onasadya even after the advance booking made by them.
The complainant deposed before the commission that when it is informed that the token is over and there is no meals the complainant demanded them to see the manager. But it is informed that he was not there then. Ext. A1 proves that opposite party arranged Onasadya in thier hotel at a Nullipady by way of parcel to the general public. The advance booking system of Onasadya may be failed due to the high demand by general public. It is through that the complainant was not provided with Onasadya parcel even though he made enquiries for advance booking. Even after booking a delicious lunch on a special day like Onam he was constrained to eat available items in the house caused great mental agony and pain to him. There is nothing to disbelieve the words of the complainant. The complainant is a leading lawyer and reputed person in the locality. Such a person will not come with a false complaint. In the absence of rebuttal evidence there is serious deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party, due to which the complainant and his family undergone severe mental agony. The Opposite Party did not adduced any evidence to prove that Onasadya parcel was served to the complainant. The complainant is entitled for reliefs in this case. Hence opposite party is liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant. The claim of the complainant is for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation but he has not produced any documentary evidence to proves such a huge loss even though the pain and sufferings sustained to the complainant is beyond calculation this commission holds that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for deficiency in service and for unfair trade practice with a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Pamphlet supplied by the Opposite Party
Witness Examined
Pw1: Anantharama.P
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
