This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Biswanath Batabyal.

     The case of the complainant’s in short is that the complainant in the month of May, 2016 went to the Konnagar Samabay Bank Ltd. for booking their holiday home at Puri from 26.7.2016 to 30.7.2016 and paid Rs.4000/- for booking of room and also paid Rs.200/- for caution money and thereafter the complainant purchase the train ticket of Jagannath Express for his family. 

      The complainant and his family reached Puri Station on 26.7.2016 and went to the Holiday Home.  But unfortunately the care taker of the Holiday Home was not present at that time and a 8.15 AM the complainant came to know that the caretaker would not come today and there is none to receive the complainant and his family members for staying there. Thereafter the complainant tried to contact with a mobile number which was given by the Opposite Party, Bank but at that time the mobile was switched off.

Finding no other alternative the Son-in-law of the complainant went outside and booked another hotel for staying there at high rate. 

It is pertinent to mention here that after reaching in the said holiday home the complainant found that the room, toilet, kitchen are very dirty and not at all habitable condition.  The complainant also found that one dog is sleeping in the room and there is stool of the dog.

After returning from the Puri the complainant reported his bitter experience regarding their holiday home to the Secretary of the Bank and requested to refund his deposited money of Rs.4200/-. In reply the Secretary told the complainant that it is not possible for them.  Thereafter the complainant wrote a complaint to the Secretary on 6.8.2016 & 25.9.2016. In reply the Opposite Party Bank sent a letter dated 28.9.2016 to the complainant but there is no whisper of refunding the deposited amount of Rs.4,200/-.

Thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint to the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Hooghly. The Assistant Director sent a letter to the Opposite Party Bank requesting to be present at their office on 19.12.2016 at 3 PM.  The representative of the Opposite Party Bank came to the office of the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Hooghly but unfortunately there was no fruitful result came out.

Thereafter the complainant filed this case before this Forum for relief with a prayer to direct the Opposite Party to refund Rs.4200/- to the complainant for booking money, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for his unnecessary harassment and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

The Opposite Party bank contested this case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him.  This Opposite party submits that in order to lower down the position and prestige of the opposite party falsely mentioned the term ‘Rebuked’ in his petition.  This opposite party also stated that on 23.9.2016 a letter was issued to the complainant which was received on 28.9.2016 but inspite of that the complainant did not comply the notice showing his bonafide and honesty.  The opposite party further submits that bank has no intention to harass the complainant or to create mental agony and anxiety to the complainant.  Therefore, the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

               Both sides files evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are taken into consideration while passing final order.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Biswanath Batabyal is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

 In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Biswanath Batabyal is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

        From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.The complainant herein is the consumer of the OP, as the complainant booked the holiday home of the opposite party at Puri by paying rent & caution money, so OP is the service provider.

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

             Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued a sum of Rs.4,200/- as  rent & caution money and to pay further a sum of Rs.50,000/- for unnecessary harassment, mental agony and anxiety and litigation cost amounting to Rs.10,000/- ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.         

             The case of the complainant is that he decided to visit Puri with his family members and for that purpose he went to Konnagar Samabay Bank Ltd., the opposite party for booking their holiday home at Puri from 26.7.2016 to 30.7.2016. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.4000/- for booking money as rent and Rs.200/- for caution money. Thereafter he purchased five confirmed tickets for Puri. Then this Petitioner alongwith his family members reached Puri on 26.7.2016 and went to the Holiday home  of the opposite party but unfortunately the caretaker of the said holyday home was not preset at that time  and at 8:15a.m. he came to know that the caretaker will not come on the day. Complainant managed to enter the holiday home in absence of caretaker and found that the room, toilet and kitchen was very dirty and not at all inhabitable by any human being and also found that a dog was sleeping inside the room and there was stool of the dog. So the petitioner left the home and went to the new hotel and stayed there upto 30.7.2016.  After returning from Puri the petitioner reported his bitter experience regarding opposite parties holiday home to the Secretary of the Bank and requested his deposited money of Rs.4200/- refund. But the secretary refused to return the same so the complainant wrote letter dated 6.8.2016 and the opposite party gave reply but there is no whisper regarding the refund of money. Then the complainant lodged a complaint before Assistant Director CA & FBP, Hooghly R.O. at Chinsurah where the representative of the bank agreed to refund the money but no money refunded so the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant case before this Forum praying direction upon the opposite party.  The sole opposite party denied the allegations leveled against him and averred that complainant failed to prove that he went to the holiday home on 26.7.2016 as there was no signature of the caretaker in the booking slip. As there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party  so the opposite party is not entitled to get the refund as per rules and further averred that for better accommodation the complainant willfully avoided the Holiday home of the opposite party and the complainant filed the instant complaint for illegal claim.  

                 After perusing the case record it appears that the complainant booked two rooms being nos 201 &202 in the holiday home of opposite party on 24.5.2016 vide booking slip no.219 and paid a sum of Rs.4000/- through money receipt  booking slip no.419 and the caution money of Rs.200/-.  So there is no question regarding the payment and the opposite party admitted the same. From the face of the case record it is transparent that the complainant managed to enter in absence of caretaker realized that the rooms allotted for the complainant was not in habitable condition so the complainant left the said home and by making alternate accommodation completed the tour. And after returning from Puri the complainant approached the Secretary of the opposite party bank and demanded the refund of said money which the complainant paid during the period of booking. The opposite party by its letter dated 23.9.2016 informed this complainant that the rent money will be refunded in case of natural calamity and if the transportation become standstill and the caution money will be refunded after the submission of caution money receipt signed by the caretaker. Now the dispute in between the complainant and the opposite party is raised before this Forum for adjudication.  In this case the complainant assailed that with the intention to stay at holiday home he booked the same as it was not inhabitable condition so on compelling circumstance they made alternate accommodation in a hotel. According to the complainant due to negligence on the part of the opposite party he compelled to leave the holiday home and as there was no caretaker so he could not get his money receipt signed by the caretaker. This Forum is in the considered opinion that it was the duty of the caretaker to receive the complainant and others and look into the matter of the tourists regarding the accommodation as they have taken rent from the complainant. But in absence of any responsible person of the holiday home the grievances of the complainant were unaddressed. The complainant filed the Xerox copy of reservation ticket to substantiate his claim that he performed the tour on scheduled date staying at alternate accommodation. Before filing the instant complaint petition the complainant made several correspondences but his utterance became unheeded for which the complainant preferred the recourse of this Forum.    

          After hearing the argument and perusing the case record this Forum is in the opinion to hold that the complainant proved his case and  he is entitled to get refund of money that he paid amounting to Rs.4200/- including other reliefs as this Forum fix.

             From the above discussion we are in a considered opinion that the OP could not evade their responsibility of deficiency of service on their part and they are under liability to return back the rent amount and caution money of the complainant along with cost & compensation.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

             The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant abled to prove his case and the Opposite Party is liable to refund the amount that deposited before them as rent and caution money of the complainant along with compensation & cost.

ORDER

Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.12/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party with a litigation cost of Rs.4,000/- .

The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.4,200/- to this complainant which the complainant paid during the booking of holiday home.

The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony of this complainant.

All the payments are to be made within 45 days from the date of passing this final order.

At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount if any in the fund of “Consumer Legal Aid Account”.

 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 & necessary action.