In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.

Case No. CC/81/2018.

Date of filing: 14/06/2018.                     Date of Final Order: 21/03/2023.

Nirmal Bag,

s/o Later Ratan Chandra Bag,

vill & P.O. Janai, P.S. Chanditala,

Dist. Hooghly, West Bengal, PIN. 712304.                …..complainant

   vs  

The Secretary Pairagacha Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.

P.O. Janai, P.S. Chanditala,

Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712102.                              …..opposite party.

Before:            President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.

                           Member, Minakshi Chakraborty.

                           Member,  Debasis Bhattacharya.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT

Presented by:

Minakshi Chakraborty,  Presiding Member.

 Brief facts of the case: This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that the complainant had booked accommodation in 3 rooms in the Holiday Home (Malati Kutir) in puri (Near Gour Badsah sabji Market, Swargadwar, Puri, behind new Kakatua/in front of Jolly House) as under:-

1. Room no.1 for 3 days from 24.9.2017 to 26.9.2017
2. Room no.1A for 3 days from 24.9.2017 to 26.9.2017
3. Room no.2 for 1 day for 24.9.2017

He had deposited Rs.2300/- on 19.7.2017 in cash received the allotment letter and the complainant after reaching Puri went straight to the Holiday Home alongwith his family members by hiring a vehicle and the complainant was astonished to note that the Holiday Home was under renovation as reported by the care taker Hrisikesh Panda and the complainant was advised by the said care taker to go to another Holiday Home namely Gulmohar Holiday Inn at a distance of about 2 kms from Holiday Holiday Home-Malati Kutir and the complainant had to hire another vehicle and move to Gulmohar Holiday Inn.There he had to book 3 rooms afresh by depositing Rs.1300/- additionally Rs.2300/- deposited earlier by the complainant was adjusted by the two holiday homes.

The complainant had to incur another expenditure to the tune of Rs.500/- for hiring of cooking materials which could be available free of cost at the Holiday Home had the accommodation been provided by the OP Pairagacha cooperative credit society Ltd. malati Kutir booked earlier by the complainant by depositing full rent and the complainant had to incur extra conveyance charges for coming and going to Gulmohar Holiday Inn as the same is situated at distance of about of 2 kms.From Swargadwar which is the heart of the town and nearer t the sea.The complainant had to incur Rs.500/- in total for three days for such journeys and after returning from Puri the complainant made a correspondence dated 11.10.2017 with the society along with all the relevant documents wherein he explained the whole affairs and sought redressal of his grievance and the complainant made another correspondence dated 07.11.2017 with the OP society requesting therein to redress his grievances.But the Op society did not take any effective steps to redress the complainant’s grievances and the op society vide their letter no.69/PCCS/Refund/17-18 dated 09.02.2018 intimated the complainant that they would refund Rs.500/- and they also requested the complainant to collect the same. The op did not inform the complainant before the date of journey towards Puri that they were unable to provide accommodation at the holiday home and for this act the complainant had suffered a lot.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 12,300/- and to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards litigation cost.

Defense Case:- The opposite party contests the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations leveled against him and states that the complainant has been booked the rooms of holiday home belonged to the op and in accordance with the said booking of the rooms the complainant reached there in schedule date and time. But at the material point of time the complainant divulged to the caretaker of the op that the room is not sufficient accommodation for his and his family and the complainant further divulged that the op has required another day for rooms. But it is not possible for the op to increase another day for booking of the room. In view of such circumstances the complainant decided to stay at other places and the complainant informed the op about such problem of the complainant and op replied in writing as regards for refund of the amount. So, the instant case should be dismissed with cost.

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The O.P. have filed evidence on affidavit which reiterates  the averments of the written version.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant and opposite parties have filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.

            Heard argument of both sides at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.

From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Issue no.1:

     In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.

Issue no.2:

                        Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.

Issue nos. 3 & 4:

Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.

In order to ascertain the true picture that the complainant intended to visit Puri for which he deposited Rs 2300/ on 19/7/2017 for which he got allotment permit (annxure 2). The complainant has also deposited annxure5 which appears to have been signed by Hrusikeh Panda and Rabin Mukherjee  it also manifests that as the malati kutir was not in a position for residential purpose he had to rush to Gulmohor holiday Inn as per suggestion of Hrusikesh Panda.

The O.P has submitted written argument stating therein that arrangement was made for the petitioner for three days in Malati kutir and the petitioner intended to stay there alongwith his family members for one day extra and the accommodation is not sufficient for himself and his family members. But it was not possible for the o.P to increase another day for booking of the room for which the complainant intentionally left the place.

On consideration of the above facts and circumstances aswell as annure5 and the photocopy of the bill of Gulmohor holiday inn of Rs.3600/ and  bill no. 445 of Kalindra Narayan store ( annxure 6) amounting to Rs. 500/ there appears reasonable grounds for his leaving the Mlati kutir and to stay in a separate holiday home for three days. Had it not been a fact that the Malati kutir is not acceptable the complainant would not have leave it to another accommodation. This can further be ascertained by the letter( annxure 9) dated 9/2/18 issued by the secretary pairagacha co opt credit society ltd. It is also pertinent to note in this connection that the O.P could bring the care taker Hrushikesh Panda who could bethe best witness in this connection in support of the case of the O.P which gives oppoutunity to this commission to draw an adverse presumption u/s 114 9g) of the Indian evidence Act in as much as he is the best witness to support the case of te O.P.

The specific case of the O.P is that the petitioner intended to stay one day more which hmeans the petitioner was required to stay there with his family for four days which,  according to the O/P was not possible and that is also one of the causes of the complainant for his denial to stay in Malati kutir. This contention also does not support the O.P in as much as the bill of Gulmohor holiday (annxue 4) clearly manifests stay of the family of the petitioner at puri was only for three days.

Accordingly the above discussion supports the case of the petitioner and as such both the points are dispose off in his favour.

Hence

ordered

that the complaint case no. 81 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.

The petitioner do get  refund of Rs 1800/ along with Rs.5000 / towards cost of litigation from the O.P within 45 days from date failing which the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.