SIRAJUDDIN SAYEED Vs. RESIDENCY TOWERS
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
N. KANNADASAN, J. -
(1.) 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.50000/- 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, eventhough 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
lawyers 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 lakhs 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 mislead 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 complainants 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 lakhs as compensation. The opposite party
refuted all other allegations.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.