Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/25/2015

D.Jayabala Chandran, S/o.C.Dharuman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor/Owner, Sunpark Inn, - Opp.Party(s)

T.Sreetharan-com

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                                          Complaint presented on:  03.02.2015

                                                                             Order pronounced on:  23.08.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 23^rd    DAY OF AUGUST 2016

 

C.C.NO.25/2015

 

D.Jayabalachandran,

S/o.C.Dharuman,

Finance Officer (Retd),

A1B1, Ground Floor, Arunachala Conceptts,

Thanigai  Salai, Arulmurugan Nagar,

Kilkattalai, Chennai – 117.

 

                                                                                    ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Proprietor/Owner,

Sun Park Inn,

(A luxury Guest House),

No.18, Cuddappa Rangiah Street,

Periamet, Chennai – 600 003.

	.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 04.02.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for  Opposite party                     : CPG.Yoganand & Associates

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant booked a deluxe AC room with the Opposite Party on 15.08.2014 at 7.30 a.m. He paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards rental advance for the said room. The Complainant entered the room, he found that Air conditioner and the telephone connection was not functioning. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party orally to arrange another room. Thereafter he went for his personal work and returned at 8.30 p.m to his room. Even that time also the above defect was not rectified by the Opposite Party. Hence the Complainant informed the manager either to arrange another room or return the advance. That time, the employee of the Opposite Party tried to attack him and also abused him.  Hence the Complainant went to another lodge and booked a room and thereafter at about 8.45 p.m he also preferred a Complaint to the police. The act of the Opposite Party caused mental agony to the Complainant. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for Deficiency in Service, compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant booked a room as stated by him and also paid advance amount. He was allotted with Room No.303. The Complainant came with six guests in the night around 8.00 p.m on 15.08.2014 i.e on Independence Day. Being the special day, the Opposite Party instructed him not to take the guests to his room and he can utilize the lobby for meeting his guests. This infuriated the Complainant and vacated the room and left the Opposite Party premises. When the Periamet police called the Opposite Party and enquired and at that time the manager of the Opposite Party explained the above facts and thereafter the police sent him away. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant booked a Deluxe AC Room on 15.08.2014 at 7.30 a.m with the Opposite Party and paid an advance amount of Rs.1,000/- for the room No.303 allotted to him and the advance receipt issued by the Opposite Party is marked as Ex.A1 and due to some quarrel between the Complainant and the Opposite Party the Complainant vacated the room on the same day and preferred  Complaint against the Opposite Party and at Periamet Police Station and the said police registered his Complaint in CSR No.302/G2/2014  under Ex.A2.

          5. According to the Complainant, he alleged deficiencies against the Opposite Party is that the Air conditioner and the telephone is not functioning in his room in the morning and the same was not rectified even while he returned to his room in the night and hence he asked the Opposite Party either to allot alternate room or return the advance amount and however the Opposite Party failed to accept his request and on the other hand attempted to assault and scolded him.

          6. The Opposite Party denied the above allegation of the Complainant and stated that the Complainant came on the day night with six guests and being the Independence Day the guests cannot be allowed in the room and they can utilize the lobby and infuriated over this the Complainant vacated the room and gave false Complaint before the  Periamet police and the police also enquired him and since he had not committed any fault the police let him off.

          7. The enquiry file was sent for from the Periamet  Police Station by this Forum and the same is perused. The Complainant’s Complaint and the Opposite Party’s letter is available in the file. Both support their respective cases. The Opposite Party specifically stated in the written version and his letter before the police that the Complainant came with six guests and they were refused to allowed in his room and that is why he gave the false Complaint before the police. The fact  of  six guests came with the Complainant stated in the written version was not denied by the Complainant in his proof affidavit subsequently filed by him. Therefore, this circumstances leads to a conclusion that the Complainant came with his guests on the Independence Day at about 8.p.m and they were not allowed to go to his room and that only infuriated the Complainant to vacate the room and preferred a Complaint before the police is accepted and therefore we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

8. POINT NO :2

          Though, the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Opposite Party admitted in his letter dated 15.08.2014 given to the police that  he is willing to return the amount paid by the Complainant  to him. However the said amount was not returned to the Complainant even after issuance of Ex.B1 legal notice by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.  This amount paid by the Complainant for the service to be rendered by the Opposite Party to him. However the Opposite Party vacated the room. Therefore as promised by the Opposite Party before the police the Complainant is entitled for the said amount of Rs.1,000/- from the Opposite Party and he is also liable to pay to him. If the Opposite Party as committed by him in his letter stated above would have paid such amount to the Complainant, he ought to have resorted in filing this Complaint. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- and however he is not entitled for any compensation from the Opposite Party.   

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand  only ) to the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

        The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. The Complaint in respect of the other reliefs is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd day of August 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 15.08.2014   Advance Receipt of sun park inn hotel

Ex.A2 dated 15.08.2014         C.S.R of Perimet Police Station

Ex.A3 dated NIL           Pan Card of D.Jayabalachandran

Ex.A4 dated NIL           University ID and address proof

Ex.A5 dated 04.12.2014         Vacating house hold articles

Ex.A6 dated 29.09.2014         Reply of Opposite Party advocate

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated 25.08.2014         Legal Notice from Complainant’s counsel to Opposite

                                     Party

 

Ex.B2 dated 20.09.2014  Postal cover showing delivery seal

 

Ex.B3 dated 29.09.2014         Reply Notice from Opposite Party’s counsel to

                                     complainant’s counsel

Ex.B4 dated NIL            Acknowledgement from Complainant’s counsel to

                                     Opposite Party counsel

 

Ex.B5 dated NIL            Identity Card of Complainant issued by Babasaheb

                                         Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Luknow to Complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT