Zaibunnisa vs PROPRIETOR, RAJADHANI HOTEL

THIS is an application to condone the delay of 118 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed by the first petitioner it is stated that the District Forum passed orders on 30.11.2000 but copy of the order was taken by her on 24.2.2001. As she was suffering with fever and facing financial difficulty she could not contact her Counsel to file an appeal. Hence there is a delay of 118 days in filing the appeal.

THE petitioner has not filed any medical certificate to show that she was suffering from viral fever. THE other ground that she was facing financial difficulties cannot be accepted since there is no necessity to pay any Court-fee for filing the appeal. Under these circumstances both the grounds in our view fail and consequently the application also must fail, and it is accordingly dismissed. Even otherwise there are no merits in the appeal.

The complainants in C.D. No. 460/2000 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy are the appellants. The version of the complainants is that one Mussad Shah husband of the first complainant and father of the second complainant visited Hyderabad on business tour and stayed in Rajadhani Hotel, Hyderabad on 31.7.1991. He sustained head injury due to fall of the door of the room in which he was staying. He was immediately removed to the hospital where he was declared dead. Due to the negligence of the opposite parties the husband of the first complainant died. Therefore, the complainants approached the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation.

THE opposite party No. 1 in his counter stated that the complainants are not consumers. Late Mussad Shah did not stay in hotel Rajadhani either on 31.7.1991 or at any time. In fact late Mussad Shah was staying with one Syed Hasnuddin of Sanath Nagar. Both of them came to the hotel on 31.7.1991 to make enquiries about some business men namely K. Khan and J. Khan who also came from Bombay who were staying in room No. 29 of the hotel. When they were about to leave the hotel on knowing that Khan brothers have gone out, the hook of the window of room No. 328 in third floor which was partly rusted fell on the head of late Shah due to heavy gale due to which he sustained head injury. He was admitted as in-patient in Osmania General Hospital and he died on 3.8.1991. THEre is no negligence on the part of the first opposite party hotel and that the claim of the complainants is barred by time and in any event he got insurance coverage under the policy issued by the second opposite party. The second opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the first opposite party.

BEFORE the District Forum both parties were absent. The complainants have not adduced any evidence. The first opposite party filed a xerox copy of the voucher dated 5.9.1991 showing that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as compensation for the death of the deceased to one Shekaal Ahmed. He also filed xerox copy of the insurance referred to above. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainants are not consumers and as such the complaint is not maintainable. It is this order that is questioned in this appeal. There is no proof that late Mussad Shah stayed in the hotel as an inmate taking a room. Even assuming that the actual room rent is not paid but promised, still the burden is on the complainant to prove that late Mussad Shah lodged in the hotel. In the absence of any proof that late Mussad Shah stayed in the hotel it is not possible to hold that the complainants are consumers. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the District Forum. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.