HUNGRY BAGS vs LT. COL. (RETD) T.S. BAKSHI

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.1.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 498 of 2013 - Hungry Bags Vs. Lt. Col. (Retd.) T.S. Bakshi by which, appeal was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that Opposite Party No.1/Petitioner, displayed on-line advertisement, on the internet, in the end of November 2013 (infact 2012), vide which it offered a holiday package of 4 nights/5 days, in Dubai, during the shopping festival, in January 2013. The complainant/Respondent No.1 showed interest in the same, to which Opposite Party No.1, responded and sent an e-mail on 03.12.2012, wherein complete details of the tour, and also the

cost of package were given. The complainant made payment of Rs.10,000/-, through cheque, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Opposite Party No.2/Respondent No. 2, and credited to the account of Opposite Party No.1. A sum of Rs.28,000/- was also paid through cheque, remitted by RTGS, by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.1. A sum of Rs.42,000/- was paid, in cash, to Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.1, sent air travel documents and confirmation voucher to the complainant. It was stated that, on reaching Dubai, at 0600 hrs, on 25th January, 2013, the complainant and his wife were informed that the rooms would be available to them, only at 1400 hrs, and till then, they had to wait, in the reception area of the hotel. Ultimately, on paying extra amount of 240 dirhams, a room was made available, to the complainant, and his wife. It was further stated that, as per the confirmation voucher, copy whereof is at Annexure B, two complimentary dinners were offered, on 26th & 27th January 2013, in the Indian Restaurant. It was further stated that after having dinner on 26th January 2013, when the complimentary voucher was presented, it was not honoured by the hotel Authorities, and, as such, the complainant had to pay an extra amount of 115 dirhams each, for the same. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 had failed to organize/arrange the room, on arrival of the complainant and his wife, at Dubai, and they had to pay extra cost, for availing the same. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte before District Forum and OP No. 2 in its written statement admitted remittance of payment through cheque as alleged by the complainant, but prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency on his part. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Appeal filed by the OP No. 1 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

Respondent No. 2''s presence was dispensed with.

Heard Managing Director of petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.

Petitioner submitted that inspite of no proof of payment of charges for room and not placing unutilized complimentary voucher for dinner and no deficiency on their part, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, respondent submitted that due to mental agony and harassment caused to him, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

It is not disputed that complainant obtained tour package of 4 nights 5 days in Dubai from OP No. 1.

The core question to be decided is whether OP No. 1 was deficient in not providing room to the complainant at 6.00 a.m. and for dishonouring complimentary dinner vouchers.

Perusal of hotel confirmation voucher reveals that standard check-in time was 1400 hours and it was specifically mentioned that rooms may not be available for early check-in unless specifically required in advance. No evidence has been placed by complainant on record that he specifically asked OP No. 1 to provide room at 6.00 a.m. Merely because complainant along with his wife reached Dubai in early morning, he was not entitled to room at 6.00 a.m. Perusal of impugned order reveals that complainant during the course of arguments admitted before learned State Commission that check-in time in the hotel was 1400 hours and they reached hotel before check-in time but despite availability of room they were not provided. Room was provided on payment of 240 dirhams. When there was no request for earlier check in, OP No. 1was not required to provide room before 1400 hours. Merely because rooms were available complainant was not entitled to room that too without payment and I do not find any deficiency on the part of OP No. 1 in not providing room before 1400 hours. Complainant has not placed any document depicting payment of 240 dirhams for taking room before check-in hours and in absence of proof, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal of OP No. 1.

As far two complimentary dinner vouchers are concerned, petitioner submitted that as dishonoured complimentary dinner vouchers have not been placed on record, it cannot be presumed that complimentary dinner vouchers were not honoured by Indian Restaurants. Admittedly, unused complimentary dinner vouchers have not been placed on record. Respondent submitted that he was not provided separate complimentary dinner voucher which is apparently contrary to paragraph 9 of the complaint in which he admitted that he presented print out of the complimentary voucher after taking dinner which was not honoured by the hotel meaning thereby, he was provided complimentary dinner voucher. Even if for the sake of arguments if it is presumed that he was not provided complimentary dinner voucher and he submitted photocopy of hotel confirmation voucher containing endorsement of complimentary voucher, these vouchers were meant for using at Indian Restaurants whereas complainant presented complimentary vouchers at the hotel. Merely because hotel was also having Restaurant, it cannot be presumed that these complimentary dinner vouchers were meant for that Restaurant in the hotel, but these complimentary dinner hotels were meant for Indian Restaurants where complainant could have used that. Nowhere in the complaint it has been alleged that complainant presented aforesaid two complimentary dinner vouchers before Indian Restaurants which were dishonoured. Even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that complainant presented complimentary dinner vouchers before Indian Restaurants, as they were complimentary and were given without charging consideration, on failure to provide this service, complainant cannot seek redressal of his grievance before Consumer Fora because OP can be held liable for deficiency in service only when he was to provide service on payment of consideration paid or promised to be paid and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 8.1.2014 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 498 of 2013 - Hungry Bags Vs. Lt. Col. (Retd.) T.S. Bakshi and order of District Forum dated 23.9.2013 passed in Complaint No. 382 of 2013 - Lt. Col. (Retd.) T.S. Bakshi Vs. Hungry Bags is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.