1. The facts, in nutshell germinating from the contents as laid down in the body of claim, are put forth as under;
2. The claimant's parents managed his marriage with the daughter of Tariq Saleem, the resident of England. The said Tariq Saleem and his wife chose Serena Hotel Faisalabad as venue for solemnizing Nikkah ceremony and reception of Barat of their daughter. As "Nakash Hall/Ravi Court" was available at Serena Hotel therefore, all the matters for its allotment were settled with Mr. Akmal Nadeem Banquet Manager Serena Hotel Faisalabad for 24.12.2008, as the booking receipt was obtained by the claimant on payment of advance money Rs. 15000/- on 04.09.2008. Invitation cards were printed accordingly and were disbursed to all the relatives, friends and members of the brother hood mentioning "Nakash Hall/Ravi Court" as venue for solemnizing the marriage ceremony. The defendant No. 3 Akmal Nadeem contacted the claimant just two days before the crucial date of marriage and disclosed that the claimant's function would be held in "Open Air" and not in the booked hall, on which the claimant lodged protest but in vain. As the claimant could not leave his home due to his martial customs therefore the defendant No.1 and 4 assured the claimant's father that they could provide extra services to the claimant but were unable to give the booked venue for performance of the claimant's marriage ceremony. Due to shortage of time, having no other choice, the claimant's father deposited advanced amount Rs. 255570/- for the banquet of 325-350 persons. After Nikkah Ceremony, when the guests were counted through the waiters, they were 210 in number but insufficient food was provided to them as half of the guests were standing with empty plates which was shameful for the claimant and his family members. On the day of marital ceremony, it was disclosed to the claimant, that the claimant's booked hall was allotted to the famous political figure of Sindu Family of Faisalabad for performance of "Rasm-e- Mehndi" which was in contravention of the hotel contract with the claimant. Under such circumstance, the claimant has lodged this claim for recovery of an amount to Rs. 5293570/- as the amount paid for the function, mental and physical torture and legal expenses.
3. The defendants vehemently apposed the claim by filing the statement of defence, interalia, on the grounds that the Nakash Hall was already booked for December 24 2008, for another function and this fact was brought to the notice of the claimant that, therefore, he was conditionally accommodated subject to the availability of Nakash Hall on December 24 2008, that father of Mr. Asad Kamran accepted the offer of the hotel administration for holding the function in the open air on the said date, and that the claimant has concocted false and fabricated story about shortage of food served to his guests to black mail the esteemed hotel in the city.
4. In view of the various complicated questions of law and facts involved in this case, the parties were required to produce their evidence to support their respective versions.
5. In this regard the claimant Asad Kamran has got recorded his statement as PW-1, through his affidavit EX-PW1/1, whereas he has submitted the recipes of the Serena Hotel EX-P1, the reservation system receipt EX-P2, the payment of Serena Hotel Ex-P3, certificate dated 02.02.2009, EX-P4, banquet confirmation contract EX-P5. The claimant has also submitted the affidavits sworn by Iftikhar Ahmad s/o Ch. Bashir Ahmad, Liaqat Ali s/o Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Ghaffar s/o Hadiat Ali, Khalid Pervaiz s/o Ch. Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Latif s/o Jan Muhammad, Ishtiaq Ahmad s/o Mushtaq Ahmad and Akmal Nadeem s/o Moulana Fazal Razzaq. In rebuttal, Haider Ali defendant No. 4 has appeared as DW1, through his affidavit, EX-DW1/1. In their documentary evidence, the defendants adduced receipt Serena Hotel dated 04.09.2008, EX-D1, receipt of Serena Hotel dated 22.12.2008, EX-D2, function confirmation contract EX-D3, function order EX-D4, store room recognition EX-D5 to D8, room bill Ex-D9, media for eventuation EX-D10, media com confirmation EX-D11, copy of buffet lunch EX-D12, hotel private reports EX-D13 to D15, management for banquet EX-D16, banquet reservation system sheet EX-D17.
6. After conclusion of evidence of the parties, I have heard their learned counsel at length and have perused the record carefully and meticulously.
7. Prior to reach a safe conclusion in this case, it would be in the fitness of things to appreciate the evidence of the parties on record critically, as under:
8. Asad Kamran the claimant/consumer has sworn affidavit EX-PW1/1 and affirmed its contents while in the witness box as PW1, so as to state on oath that he himself got allotted the Nakash Hall in the Serena Hotel as venue for his Nikkah Ceremony and reception of Barat, that keeping in view the availability of Nakash Hall/Ravi Court at Serena Hotel, the date of marriage ceremony was fixed on 24.12.2008, that he settled the programme accordingly with Ahmad Nadeem defendant No. 4 and deposited Rs. 15000/- as advanced money on 04.09.2008, vide receipt EX-P1, and obtained reservation slip of the Hall from the hotel administration, on the same date vide EX-P2, that all the arrangements of marriage ceremony were complete when Akmal Nadeem banquet Manager (defendant No. 3) informed the claimant that the hotel management had no option but to arrange his marriage function in the open air within the hotel premises instead in the booked hall on which the claimant lodged protest but that he could not come out of the house due to customary restraints that, hence, his father negotiated with the hotel management and having no other choice agreed to hold the marriage function in the "Open Air" as proposed by the hotel management. He has further explained that the booked hall was allotted to a renowned political and wealthy figure of Faisalabad to solemnize the Mehndi Ceremony of his family member in the same night of 24.12.209. The claimant has further elaborated that the food served in the function to his guests was insufficient and that his grievances were not redressed despite protest. He has concluded his statement that he may not only be returned the expenses incurred by him in the marriage ceremony but also that he may be awarded with heavy amount as compensation by the defendants. This witness was cross examined by the learned counsel of defendant showing that some facilities were provided by the hotel management to the claimant and his newly married wife and all such suggestions go in favour of claimant as the hotel management was ashamed for none fulfillment of its contract with the claimant as they changed the venue abroubtly, in the nick of time when arrangements of the marriage ceremony of the claimant were complete in all respects as the invitation cards had been delivered showing the venue at "Nakash Hall/Ravi Court".
From all such circumstances, and the evidence of the claimant, oral as well as documentary, it is crystal clear that the defendants have blatantly deviated from the promise of holding the marriage ceremony of the claimant in the "Nakash Hall/ Ravi Court" in the Spur of moment when the claimant's father had been left with no other option but to accept the proposal of hotel management to hold the marriage function in open air and such offer was accepted by the claimant under utter bewilderness. The statement of Haider Ali DW1, in rebuttal, through his affidavit, is consonance with the stance of the claimant except that the witness has deposed that the claimant's father accepted with free consent, the offer of holding the function in "Open Air".
However, this stand of the defendant to the extent of consent of claimant's father is not acceptable and believable as the evidence of the parties is to be read and considered in totality as due to shortage of time no alternate was available to him. Haider Ali DW-1, was subjected to cross examination when he admitted that the "Nakash Hall/Ravi Court" was allotted for "Rasm-e-Mehndi" of Sindu family for the night of 24.12.2008. He further accepted that Aftab Sindu was Town Nazim and his several functions were arranged in the Serena Hotel with relation to media Com. All such admissions of the DW support the claimant's stand that he and his family members were let down by the hotel management due to cancellation of booking of "Nakash Hall/Ravi Court" owing to its reservation to another renowned family of Faisalabad in the same night when the claimant's function of marriage was to be held.
9. From the above said scenario, on critical examination of evidence as produced by the parties, I have carefully elicited following points with clarity; a. Admittedly the claimant got reserved "Nakash Hall/Ravi Court" for solemnizing his marriage ceremony in the night of 24.12.2008, such allotment of the same Hall was cancelled by the hotel management without assigning any reason; b. The payment of advance money vide EX-P1/D1, on 04.09.2008, shows that the reservation of "Nakash Hall" was confirmed in favour of the claimant as per contract in between the parties vide EX-P2; c. The confirmation of allotment of the same "Hall/Ravi Court" in favour of Sindhu family in the same night of the 24.12.2008 shows the malafide intent of the hotel management; d. The acceptance of the offer of the Hotel Management by the claimant's father to hold the Marriage ceremony in open air was under coercion, therefore, such acquiescence would be of no avail to the defendants; e. The extra benefits given by the Hotel management to the claimant and his spouse further strengthens the claimant's case that the Hotel management was shy of its undue act and it did so to save the repute of the Hotel, to console the claimant and to restrain him from knocking at the door of the forum; f. The up shot of the above said whole discussion is that I concur with argument advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant/consumer that the consumer has unjustifiably been exploited by the Hotel Management. It is manifest from overwhelming evidence on record that there was absence of reasonable prudent care by the Hotel management causing loss, injury, signifying some detriment or deprivation and invasion of legally protected interest of the claimant.
10. For what has been discussed above, the only irrefutable conclusion drawn is that as the claimant/consumer has proved his case upto the hilt showing faulty and defective services of the defendants, the claim is accepted with the observation that the alleged nervous shocks are not coupled with physical injury to the claimant therefore, there is no liability for emotional distress or grief which does not lead to recognizable medical condition including depression, personality damage, posttraumatic stress disorder. Accordingly, the defendants shall now return the amount of Rs.270570/- deposited by the claimant with the hotel Management alongwith legal expense of Rs. 10000/- i.e total amount Rs. 280570/- to the claimant within the 30 days period otherwise the matter shall be dealt with under section 32 (2) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.