Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
N. Kannadasan, President and Pon. Gunasekaran, Member
SIRAJUDDIN SAYEED - Appellant
Versus
RESIDENCY TOWERS - Respondent
A.P. No. 78 of 2008
Decided on : 20-11-2008
Mr. T. Velu Mani, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R. Krishnaswamy, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that the complainant must establish a deficiency in service to claim compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Compensation - Deficiency in Service - [HOTEL SERVICES] - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definition of 'deficiency in service' and 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(g) and Section 2(1)(o) respectively. The court also referred to the provisions related to the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the powers to determine compensation under Section 2(1)(r). The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision in dismissing the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a trustee and Treasurer, availed hotel services for his daughter's marriage dinner. He claimed deficiency in service and sought compensation. The hotel resisted, claiming misrepresentation of guest numbers and pending suit for recovery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to establish any deficiency in the hotel's service. It noted discrepancies in the number of halls booked and the timing of the event. The court also considered the delay in the hotel's reply notice and pending suit for recovery.
Issues: Discrepancies in the number of halls booked, timing of the event, and delay in the hotel's reply notice were key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence and materials available on record to determine the lack of deficiency in the hotel's service. It also considered the pending suit for recovery and the delay in the hotel's reply notice.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER
N. Kannadasan, President - The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party before the District Forum.
2. The complaint is filed as against the opposite party claiming compensation for deficiency in service under the following circumstances. The complainant is a permanent trustee as well as Treasurer in the Southern India Educational Trust. The complainant is also functioning as an agent of LIC and Chairman and Club Member of the LIC, for the past several years and having a respectable status in the society. The complainant has availed the services of the opposite party hotel for conducting marriage dinner of his daughter, which took place on 2.1.2005. On 27.11.2004, the hotel was booked and an advance of Rs. 50,000 was paid by the complainant. The bridegroom and his parents had requested the complainant to arrange dinner in a grand manner, in a reputed hotel. Though the complainant initially suggested to the bridegroom family, the sports pavilion and hall of the SIET, which situated at 5 acres of land, finally has chosen to book the opposite party hotel. As per the confirmation letter, the hotel was booked for the function on 2.1.2005 and 3.1.2005 and number of guests was indicated as 600 guaranteed and 50 expected extra. The dinner time was indicated as 5.00 p.m to 11.00 p.m. According to the complainant, he had specifically indicated the opposite party that the marriage party would come for dinner only by 8.00 p.m. and instructed the opposite party to commence the dinner accordingly. However, the opposite party have commenced serving the dinner even before the time indicated, and when the guests have started entering the hotel, several dishes were exhausted and there were only empty counters and the opposite party was instructed to refill the dishes, but there was no response from them. According to the complainant, even though 5 halls were booked, only three halls were given and no welcome drink was served. In the complaint, several other deficiencies were pointed out viz. salads were not filled and enough food items were not available in the counter and the guests were made to wait and there was not continuous service. Under the said circumstances, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum. Thereafter, the complainant has chosen to send lawyer's notice and there was no immediate reply on the part of the opposite party and accordingly approached the District Forum by claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lakh by filing the complaint.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint by contending that the opposite party hotel is a reputed one and the opposite party hotel consist of as many as five Banquet Halls and they have become popular choices for business houses as well as general public to hold functions, and there was no complaint whatsoever in the services rendered by the opposite party for all these years. It is further contended that it is not correct to state that 5 halls were booked, but on the contrary only 3 halls were booked and booking was done only for 600 guests with an expected increase of another 50 guests, but however the number of guests have exceeded the estimate of the complainant, and the opposite party had been totally misled by the complainant and his daughter as to the number of guests who expected to attend the function. In view of the inflow of unexpected additional crowd, the opposite party managed their level best and in fact the complainant's representative Mr. Ashfaq Ali has also made an endorsement that even though 650 plates were ordered, final quantities would be discussed in person. Even though total bill payable by the complainant is Rs. 2,96,239, the said amount was not settled and on the other hand to unjustly enrich himself, the complaint is filed by claiming heavy sum of Rs. 10 lakh as compensation. The opposite party refuted all other allegat
