| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/28/21 Date of Institution:- 25.01.2021 Order Reserved on:- 29.05.2024 Date of Decision:- 14.08.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: SonaliKhanna Duplex No.8, 7/86, Ratan Gardenia, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh - 208002 .….. Complainant VERSUS - Unison Hotels Private Limited
(a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956; carrying out its Business in the name of ‘The Grand’) Plot No.2, Nelson Mandela Road, VasantKunj Phase-II, New Delhi – 110070 - Hotel the Grand
Nelson Mandela Marg, VasantKunj Phase-II, New Delhi - 110070 .…..Opposite Parties Per Dr. HarshaliKaur, Member - The complainant booked two rooms at OP-2 hotel and checked into rooms No.552 and 553 of OP-2 on 21.12.2019, staying for one night and checking in again from 24.12.2019 to 27.12.2019.
- The complainant alleges that during her stay, she called the housekeeping staff to collect her husband's "Moncler Ski Jacket" for dry cleaning from her room. The housing staff collected the jacket and assured the complainant that they were familiar with washing a ski jacket.
- The complainant was charged the sum of Rs.472/- as laundry charges, which the complainant paid in cash at the time of the collection of the jacket by OP-2 housekeeping staff. When the complainant again checked in Room No.552 on 24.12.2019,the jacket was returned to the complainant on 25.12.2019.
- The complainant states that she was utterly shocked to receive the jacket in damaged condition. The complainant alleges that:
- The zipper of the jacket and the area surrounding it were damaged.
- The surface of the jacket had bubbles all over it.
- The drycleaning of the jacket was done contrary to the norms of dry cleaning of ski jackets without following the cleaning instructions given for the cleaning of ski jackets.
- The complainant immediately informed the staff of OP-2 and escalated the matter to the laundry head of OP-2, who accepted the fact that the zipper of the jacket had been damaged. Vide e-mail dated 26.12.2019 OP-2 duly admitted its fault and deficiency in service. The complainant, therefore, asked OP-2 to refund her laundry charges along with the jacket's price, which was 1500 British pounds (around Rs.1,41,630).
- In response, the staff of OP-2 shared the laundry list with the complainant, which contained a limitation clause whereby limiting the liability against any loss or damage to any garment to a sum not exceeding five times the cleaning value of the garment, which was a one-sided and arbitrary clause as stated by the complainant.
- Despite the complainant's repeated requests, OP-2 did not refund the amount as requested, so she issued a legal notice dated 13.02.2020 to the OP, which was neither replied to nor complied with.
- Aggrieved by OP's casual approach to the complainant's grievance and loss, the complainant filed the present complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for payment of 1500 British Pounds towards the price of the ski jacket along with interest @18% till realization, refund of Rs.472/- along with interest @18% p.a. till realization, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment faced by the complainant and litigation cost.
- On Notice,OP-1 and 2 filed a joint reply stating therein that the OP hotel has created a separate department Laundry duly equipped with the latest technology for laundry service under the supervision, management and control of well-experienced and qualified persons. Hence, no question of negligence or deficiency can arise as alleged by the complainant in the present complaint.
- Admittedly, the complainant requested the laundry service on 21.12.2019 while staying at the OP-2 hotel. She handed over one jacket to the laundry staff with instructions to repair one dress zip of the jacket and to dryclean the same. While collecting the jacket, the laundry staff inspected the jacket and found it to be an old jacket with instructionsto wash the same mentioned over the jacket tag.
- Afterthorough examination, the dress zip of the jacket was found to beunrepairable and required to be replaced with a new dress zip of a similar configuration, which could only be available with the specified zip maker. The complainant's jacket was hand-washed and air-dried as instructed and mentioned on the jacket label. The jacket was handed over on 27.12.2019 as requested by the complainant, making the dress zip issue clear to her. There was no damage to the jacket due to the dry wash carried out by the laundry department of OP-2. Annexure-R2 is the copy of the bill raised by OP-2 reflecting the laundry charge and payment made by the complainant in cash.
- The OPs also state that e-mail communication dated 26.12.2019 placed on record by the complainant on page no.20 of the complaint is unauthorizedly accessed as it is in inter-department communication. The complainant has further added handwritten notes before filing the copy of the e-mail on record, which amounts to tampering and manipulation by her in gross violation of the law. The OPs have placed on record the copy of the inter-departmental e-mail communication exchanged, which they claim the complainant has fabricated and misused as Annexure-R3.
- The complainant filed a rejoinder wherein she stated that the e-mail dated 26.12. 2019, which the OPs claim has been illegally obtained, was provided to the complainant by the staff of OP-2 as a printed copy. Further, the OPs have admitted to the damage to the zipper in the e-mail, and rather than focusing on the illegality of obtaining the e-mail, the Commission should reject it as their contention has no bearing upon the merits of the present complaint.
- The complainant,thereafter, filed her affidavit in evidence, reiterating the averments as made in the complaint. The OPs did not file their affidavit in evidence despite several opportunities and hence were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.03.2023. The complainant filed written Arguments, and on the date fixed for final arguments, we have heard the Ld. Counsel of the complainant,and since none appeared for OPs, the order was reserved.
- We have carefully reviewed the material on record and perused the documents filed by the contesting parties to corroborate their statements.
- We find that the complainant,staying in OP-2 hotel,requested a laundry service for her husband'sbranded jacket on 25.12.2019.She was assured by the OP -2 Laundry staff that they were aware of the washing process of the ski jacket handed to them for drycleaning. She paidthe dry cleaning/ laundry charge of Rs.472/- for the service and was issued an invoice annexed on page no. 19 of the complaint.
- When the complainant received the jacket on 25.12.2019, she found that the jacket's zipper was damaged and the jacket itself had bubbles all over. She made a complaint with the laundry manager of OP-2 and demanded that OP-2 refund her the cost of the damaged jacket to the tune of 1500 pounds and the dry cleaning cost. When the OPs did not heed her request, the complainant filed the present complaint.
- To corroborate her claim, the complainant filed the hotel bill to show that she was staying at OP-2, the invoice dated 25.12. 2019 towards the dry cleaning of the jacket, e-mail dated 26.12.2019, laundry List with the terms and conditions, pictures to show the state of the returned jacket, price of the jacket on the company's website, and copy of the legal Notice from pages no. 18 to 35 respectively.
- Though the OPs were proceeded exparte for not filing their affidavit to be read in evidence, the OPs denied that the jacket was damaged by them in their reply.They stated instead that the staff of the professional laundry department was given the jacket in question with a damaged dress zipper, which was inspected,and the complainant was informed that the zipperneeded to be replaced by the makers of the dress zip. Hence, OP-2 had already clarified that they could only wash the jacket as per the instructions on thejacket label.
- OP-2 further states that the complainant has filed on record an e-mail dated 26.12.2019,which is inter-departmental and has also tampered with the same, which is against the tenants of law. The original e-mail without cutting is filed by them on record as Annexure-R3.
- In our view, a bare perusal of the copy of the e-mails annexed by the complainant on page no.20 of her complaint and page no.3 of the reply filed by the OPs clarify that, undoubtedly, the complainant has tampered with the e-mail to file the same on record to suit her own case.
- The e-mail dated 26.12.2019 filed by the OP with the reply is as under:-
Dear Sir., Kindly note we had received Laundry of Room no 532 on 21/12/19 at 15:00 Pm. Guest had called up in Landry that her laundry in lying in Room & she informed that one dress zip to be repair and Jacket for Dry clean. Guest infirmed that she will collect on 27/12/19 so keep in hold. Later laundry was collected from room and found that Dress zip could not be repair so it was returned in room. Jacket was Hand wash and air dry as per washing instructions mentioned on Jacket label. Delivered on 26/12/19 at 19:00 Pm. Kind Regards, Laundry Manager The Grand New Delhi Nelson Mandela Road, VasantKunj, Phase II, New Delhi – 110070 Phone: (91) (11) 26705604 - The complainant has crossed out with a blue pen-
that she informed that one dress zip is to be repairalong with and found that the dress zip could not be repair so it.
A handwritten note has been added to this e-mail and signed. But the complainant is silent as to who has written and signed this note, nor has she filed the affidavit of the person who wrote this note in the interdepartmental e-mail for reasons best known to her. - Further, in the same e-mail, it is clarified that the jacket was hand-wash and air-dried as per washing instructions mentioned on the jacket label delivered on 26.12.2019 at 19:00 PM, which falsifies the complainant's averment that the staff of OP-2 did not follow the washing/dry clean instructions as mentioned in the jacket.
- Hence in the absence of any cogent evidenceto substantiate her claim we dismiss the present complaint without costs.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 14.08.2024.
| |
