GOPAL AGGARWAL vs HOTEL LE MERIDIAN

ON 1.9.92 the appellant booked Banquet Hall and the bigger hall for two parties to be held on 15.1.93 and 16.1.93 respectively in the Respondent hotel. He paid Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively against receipts. He intimated to the Respondent about the cancellation of the parties on 26.10.92 and asked for refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/-. He failed to get a reply. He wrote to the General Manager on 22.10.93 under registered A.D. cover. In the reply dated 29.10.93 the Sr. Vice President and General Manager of the Respondent informed the appellant that normally the person who cancelled the booking forfeited the amount paid in advance. The said policy had been relaxed to the extent that if the hotel was able to sell the accommodation booked, it refunded the amount but if it failed to book the accommodation afresh the amount was forfeited. It was further intimated that the hotel was able to re-book the Banquet Hall for 15.1.93 and accordingly the amount paid on that account was being refunded. The hotel was. not able to re-book the bigger hall for 16.1.93 and accordingly the amount of Rs. 15,000/- could not be refunded. Aggrieved by the reply, the appellant filed a complaint from which the present appeal has arisen.

THE learned District Forum relying on Mukta Kalyan Mandapam v. N. Radhakrishna, III (1994) CPJ 54 (NC)=1994 CTJ 95, held that there was no deficiency in service in the absence of any contract to refund the money upon cancellation of the booking. In view of the concession given in the reply, OP was directed to refund Rs. 5,000/-. Dissatisfied with the order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Two points are material. THEse are:- (i) Whether there was a contract between the parties to refund the amount of advance if booking was cancelled well ahead of the dates for which the booking was made, and (ii) Whether in fact the hotel had sold the bigger hall for 16.1.93. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any such material. All he submitted was that the record with regard to cancellation had not been properly kept by the respondent as pointed out by the District Forum in its order and no reliance could therefore be placed on it. This, in our view, does not discharge the onus placed on the appellant. He could show by independent evidence that he was entitled to refund under terms of the agreement and also that the bigger hall was, in fact, sold out to some other person for 16.1.93. We do not find any deficiency in service and accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. A copy of this order be communicated to the appellant.

Appeal dismissed.