JAYPRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ASHOK HOTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 25.3.1993, Mr. Jayaprakash Agarwal, complainant for short, booked Convention Hall of Ashok Hotel, New Delhi for a dinner in connection with the marriage of complainant's relation Miss Neeru to be held on 7.6.1993. Menu was settled and the charges were to be made per plate. The case of the complainant is that the assured number of guests was 1,000 and the number could exceed by 10%. In the dinner arranged by the opposite party, there were a large number of deficiencies. Many guests were not served even with water. Many of the guests were not served several items on the menu including chapaties, nan. The number of buffet tables were removed while the guests were still taking their meals. About 60% of the guests were not served with salad. The staff of the opposite party was discourteous. The complainant asked for the complaint-book for lodging his complaint. The same was not made available. The complainant was obliged to lodge complaint in writing on a separate sheet of paper on 8.6.1993. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 19.7.1994 to which reply was received dated 27.10.1993. The complainant claimed compensation amounting to Rs.5 lacs for the inconvenience and mental pain suffered by him. The complaint was filed on 15.3.1995.

(2.) In the written version the opposite party stated that the agreed number of guests, as per booking order, was 700. It was then increased to 800 and the booking clerk accordingly changed the figure originally written in the Function Booking Order by over-writing the figure '8' for the original figure 7 and handed over a copy of the booking order to the complainant. The number agreed to was 800 which could increase by 10% and full arrangements for catering to the said number of guests was made. Infact, the number of guests, who attended, increased to more than 1,000. Dal Halwa, which was one of the dishes in the menu, became short after having been served to about 900 guests and the same could not be arranged at that stage. Instead, an alternative sweet-dish was arranged and served. Various deficiencies were expressly denied. It was further pleaded that some of the guests became inabriated and quarrelled with the staff of the opposite party. With regard to removal of the some of the buffet tables, it was stated that after 900 guests had taken their dinner, some tables were removed at the instance of Mr. Bindal, father of the bride, apparently to make more space for the guests, who stayed on for the wedding ceremony. The averments made in the written version were controverted in the rejoinder filed by the complainant. The complainant filed his own affidavit and that of Mr. S. V. Raju, Advocate, who was one of the guests. The opposite party filed affidavits of Mr. Shankar Singh, Booking Clerk, Miss Sudha Chandra, Dy. General Manager and Mr. Vidyut Chatterjee, Sr. Maitre D. Hotel. The opposite party also filed copy of the booking order made by the complainant under his signature. None appeared for the complainant when the complaint was called on for hearing. Infact, none appeared for the complainant on the preceding three dates, namely 10.11.1997, 21.8.1997 and 2.7.1997. The last date on which complainant's Counsel Mr. H. A. Raichura appeared was 30.4.1997 when he filed his written arguments. We have heard Mr. G. P. Upman, Advocate for the opposite party and have carefully gone through the records including the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties. According to the written statement, water was served from 7p. m. till the conclusion of the function and there was no shortage thereof at any stage. It has been admitted that after serving about 900 guests Dal Halwa, which was one of the dishes in the menu was finished. The same could not be prepared at that stage and the opposite party offered and served an alternative sweet-dish. With regard to discourteous behaviour on the part of the staff of the opposite party, it has been stated that infact, the staff of the opposite party did not misbehave. On the contrary, some of the guests, who attended the function, misbehaved with the staff of the opposite party under the influence of alcohol, which was apparently consumed by them at their own level elsewhere. The complaint-book was not available. The complainant was, therefore, asked to lodge his complaint in writing. That complaint has been filed as Annexure-B. It appears to have been written in hand by Mr. S. V. Raju, who was one of the guests attending the function. The complaint is at pages 15 to 18 of the paper-book. In a situation like this, the material averments having been expressly denied, the necessary facts can be established only by detailed evidence including examination of witnesses and their cross-examination. This is possible in regular proceedings. It is not possible for us to undertake such an exercise in the summary proceedings before us. On this short ground, therefore, we relegate the complainant to his remedy in the Civil Court. In the present situation, the crucial question is as to what was the number of guests for which the booking had been made. Whereas according to the complainant, the booking was made for 1,000 guests which could increase by 10% over and above that figure, according to the opposite party the assured number of guests was 800 which could increase by 10% and catering was required to be done for 880 or so. The opposite party has placed on record a copy of the booking order as Annexure- Aatpage7of the paper-book. The booking order is duly signed by the complainant. The number of guests mentioned in the relevant column is 800. This is supported by affidavit of the booking clerk, Shankar Singh, who has filed his affidavit. To contradict him, the complainant has not filed copy of the booking order, which was given to him. It follows that the number of guests, according to the booking order, was 800 which could increase by 10% so as to make the total to be 880. The categorical case pleaded by the opposite party is that various items on the menu were served to about 900 guests and as the total number of guests exceeded 1,000 there was shortage of Dal Halwa which could not be prepared at a short notice. This provided the possible irritant to the complainant to lodge a highly exaggerated complaint. Apart from the question of shortage of various items including water, the other disputed question of fact is the alleged misbehaviour on the part of the staff of the opposite party alleged by the complainant on the one hand and stated misbehaviour on the part of some of the guests under influence of liquor, as alleged by the opposite party. This question too can be properly and satisfactorily determined on the basis of evidence including cross-examination of material witnesses which is possible in a regular enquiry before the Civil Court. For these reasons, we dispose of the complaint leaving it open to the complainant to have his remedy in the Civil Court, if so advised. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties.