CASE
COMMENT
The
Fern- an- Ecotel Hotel v. Navratan Nahta and another, 2012
Equitable
citations:
Bench:
Justice
R.K. Agrawal
PETITIONER:
“THE
FERN- AN- ECOTEL HOTEL”
V.
RESPONDENT:
“NAVRATAN
NAHTA AND ANOTHER”
DATE
OF JUDGEMENT: 21 January, 2022
BENCH:
Justice R.K. Agrawal; President: Hon’ble Dr. S.M. Kantikar
INTRODUCTION
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions are set- up
to resolve any dispute arises in the context
of consumer rights or unfair trade practices etc. there are State
Disputes Redressal Commissions, decision
of which, if are unable to satisfy the parties; they approach to the
National Disputes Redressal Commission. In the case of Ecotel Hotel too, the
case was first fought in the State Commission but when the defendant found the
judgement wrong, he apealled the case in National Commission as petitioner.
ISSUES
1. Cancelling
the rooms booked 3 months prior on account of maintenance is a valid reason?
2. Weather
the court was right in giving orders for such an huge compensation?
3. Weather
the state commission was right in allowing the complaint of Mr. Nahata as they
were informed earlier by the hotel that the booking could be cancelled?
FACTS
OF THE CASE
The facts of case in brief giving rise to appeal are
that complainant respondents filed an Original Complaint before Rajasthan State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred
to as Hon'ble State Commission) in opening of year, 2012 against present
appellant non complainant. The Complainant-respondents along with complaint
accompanied copies of entire documents to substantiate all their vague,
baseless and false allegations so as to make out a case for claim of
compensation misguiding Hon'ble State Commission. The Complainant-respondents
pleaded in the Original Complaint that the respondent Institution exposes
itself the first five star Ecotel hotel in Rajasthan and invites general public
to stay in hotel, arrange functions etc on payment of fee. The non-complainant
ceremonies of marriage from 23.2.2012 to 25.2.2012. The hotel administration
also stated that due to there being tourists season from October to March, on
depositing booking amount now, booking shall be confirmed, and in future due to
tourist season they shall have not face difficulty of non-availability of
accommodation. On such assurance of non-complainant, the complainants calling
on representative of his relative got the hostel inspected and ultimately
through his son complainant No. 2 and friend Raj Kumar Bafna deposited Rs.
25,000/ with non complainant. The complainant became ensured that they shall
get the said hotel for stay of marriage party and functions of marriage, which
was also approved by the representative of his relative. Under booking 25 rooms
@ Rs. 25,000/- per room per day were booked. They had to get booked three star
hotel Om Towers, Jaipur which is situated at a distance of 10-12 km away from
the hotel booked by the respondent earlier and in that three star hotel too,
complainants had to pay Rs. 2886/- per room per day. At the time of booking the
non-complainant agreed to provide two rooms and one suit complementary without
charges, in addition to it gave 20% discount in dinner, two mineral water
bottles free in each rooms, both time breakfast complimentary and lunch and
dinner in Banquet hall and non-veg diet also. In addition to it loan and other
available places in the hotel were also provided free of charge for marriage
purpose. Whereas all those facilities were not available in said hotel as a
result of which, complainants had to spend extra money and had to face huge
difficulty for want of additional space and facility. Not only this,
complainants with consent of groom side promised to provided stay facility to
marriage party in five star hotel, could provide only three star hotel and it
lowered down their prestige in society and amongst relatives and his daughter
also had to face different types of taunting from parent-in-laws side for her
no fault. The facility provided was not according to status of parent-in-laws
of his daughter, which caused due to bad intention and unfair provides five
star facility in furnished rooms, hall, conference hall, banquet hall etc to
passengers for staying and arranging wedding and other functions on one time
and on installments for payment of fee and thus, provide services to
complainants and other public charging fee. The marriage of Priyanka; daughter
of complainant No. 1 and sister of complainant No. 2 was scheduled to be
solemnized on 24.2.2012. The complainants are from a well to do family, and the
family where their daughter/sister is going to be married is also well to do.
Every father and brother is always interested in spending more than own
capacity or at least equal to the status of opposite side in marriage of
daughter or sister as per Indian culture and religion. During this period in
conversation between both the parties about marriage, it was settled that
marriage party shall stay in five star hotel and complainants through their
friend Raj Kumar Bafna in first week of July, 2011 visiting different five star
hotels enquired and discussed with about facilities being provided there for
stay of marriage party, passing it from there and for entire functions of
marriage to be performed from side of bride properly. From the side of non-complainant
its Sales and Marketing department opened entire halls, Banquet Hall, Lawn etc
of hotel for inspection and assured that proper arrangement shall be made for
stay of marriage party and for all Banquet hall dinner facility was assured to
be provided. In addition to it, facility for loan, proper parking and to
carrying on functions on other available space in the hotel was also provided.
The complainants further pleaded in their complaint that having been without
care towards booking of hotel, engaged in arranging other requirements and
preparations. For the purpose of stay of their guests and relatives and family
members and for other marriage works they also booked other rooms as per their
need in Hotel Royal Orchid and Red Fox Hotel. About 4 months and 21 days after
booking without any consultation with the complainants, the non illegal act, it
tantamounts to deficiency in services of the non-complainant. it was also
pleaded in the complaint that at the time of canceling the booking by the non-complainant
did neither propose for providing other accommodation in lieu of the facility
for which hotel was booked nor alternate arrangement was done which was
essential. Booking amount is paid so that the person receiving the amount may
not get back of its agreement. the appellant further averred in the written
statement to the complaint that the complainant sent a E-Mail to Raj Kumar
Bafna friend of complainant whereby the booking of hotel done from 23.2.2012 to
25.2.2012 was cancelled showing inability to provide the rooms. Arranging for
marriage in five star hotel in Jaipur, booking had been done for such huge
number of rooms several months prior to marriage, the complainant did it 6
months prior to marriage but prior to the date of marriage all of sudden
receiving such information for cancellation of marriage without any reason
tantamounts to deficiencies in services of non-complainant. The non-complainant
informed through E-mail that their due to maintenance purpose their rooms and
floors shall remain closed till 31.3.2012, was completely false and misguiding
because there was neither any immediate reason for maintenance for such longer
period nor any necessity nor in fact it was there. Because, they were booking
the accommodations through internet, website and other sources for demand and
such booking was being done on about Rs. 11,000/- per day basis.it was made
clear that the reason for cancellation of booking was not at all maintenance
rather canceling the booking of complainant they wanted to earn more profit by
booking it to other people on higher cost. In such situation the different
festivals, cultural programs, fair,
visits by tourists in huge quantity in suitable season the respondents
publishing luring advertisements earn more profit and on other hand the
complainants, their family members and relatives were put to huge loss
specially when they booked the hotel 7 months prior to the date of marriage and
such type of act in hotel services is shameful, unfair trade practice. Due to
tourists season within 1 month and 7 days rooms were hardly available in five
star hotels and the rooms, which were available they had to pay on much hire
cost than the rooms booked in the hotel. Due to all these reasons the
complainants booked the accommodation 7 months prior by depositing the booking
amount.
CONTENTIONS
Arguments
given by Petitioner
The complainants further made averments that on
account of sudden cancellation of rooms the non-petitioner, they faced great by
inconvenience and mental agony and they were subjected to face insult before
the in-laws of the daughter. compelled to Hotel Om aforesaid book Tower act at
and The rooms complainant's at a higher conduct of were three star tariff. The
the hotel amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the complaint be allowed
and an Rs.23, 45, 500/- be awarded as amount of compensation against the
difference of tariff, which the non-petitioner earned by cancellation of the
booking, for the facilities which the non petitioner promised to provide and
for the mental agony.
Arguments
given by Respondent
The non-petitioner in it's reply to the complaint
stated that it is ready to refund the booking amount to the complainants. The
advertisement for the availability of rooms during the impugned aforesaid
period was given by the agents of the hotel. An amountof Rs.12000/ Bafna, who
was deposited by Mr.Rajkumar is proceedings. The not entire a party amount to
the of booking was only tentative and it was not rooms 80% are of final as
finally booked after payment of the complainants tariff are not and hence,
consumer. the The
complainants informed the that they were making
efforts nearer non-petitioner to get rooms to their residence and in case the
could not be managed elsewhere, then rooms they would go for the rooms with the
non petitioner hotel. This is evident from the fact that the complainants
booked 75 rooms with hotel-Om whereas the Tower as per non-petitioner their
need, could provide only 25 rooms, which could not meet out the need of the
complainants. The complainants are not beneficiary and the complaint is not
maintainable and hence, the complaint be dismissed.
INFERENCE
We have heard the arguments of both the parties and
carefully perused the record and evidence submitted by them. We are in
agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant that
arrangements of marriages in India are not a man's assistance job of and it
relatives requires help and and friends, etc. From the affidavit submitted by
Mr.Rajkumar Bafna, friend it is evident that he is a family of the complainants
and he also undertook arrangements for the marriage. For this purpose, if he
deposited Rs. 12,000/- on behalf of the complainants, then there was nothing
wrong in doing so. As Mr.Bafna deposited Rs.12,000/- as an advance money for
the booking of 25 rooms for the marriage of daughter of complainant No.1, then
the complainants are naturally the beneficiary of defendant.
CONCLUSION
The Ecotel Hotel case give an overview of our
consumer rights. This case was faught by Adv. Devendra Mohan Mathur on the
behalf of Ecotel Hotel, a specialized advocate in consumer rights. The case was
first fought in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as the
complainant,being the petitioner and Ecotel Hotel as the respondent.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the respondent took the case to the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as the petitioner.
0 Comments