Date of Filing:18/02/2020

Date of Order:09/06/2022

BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated:09^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SRI. Y.S. THAMMANNA, B.Sc, LL.B., MEMBER

SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M, B.A, LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.178/2020

Vs

ORDER

BY SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

1.     This Complaint is filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as OPs) alleging the deficiency in service in not booking the hotel room though received the advance amount and for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental torture, inconvenience  and harassment and for Rs.25,000/- towards litigations expenses and for other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit. 

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that: the complainant booked a room in Gokarna through OP by paying Rs.6,888/- for stay in hotel Royal Valley for the period 21 to 23 December 2019. Immediately on the next day he was shocked to receive message that the booking has been cancelled and he can book afresh. The link was also sent. When he tried to use the link to book the hotel, he could not do so. He called the customer care and explained the difficulties and after waiting for many hours, the booking was confirmed by Op.  As per the schedule, complainant reached Gokarna and tried to check in to the hotel room in which OP had booked. To his surprise, he was denied entry into the hotel room, on the ground that there was no booking in his name. He tried to contact OP but could not do it. This shows the negligence and careless attitude and deficiency in service on the part of OP.

3.     He searched other hotels for room in the said place and as it was weekend, and Christmas, season,  all the hotel were full and there was no hotel room available. Himself and his two friends by engaging taxi, by spending huge amount of Rs.25,000/-, had to return back.  When he contacted the customer care of OP the next day, and demanded for compensation for the inconvenience caused and for mental harassment, OP refused to extend any kind of help.  Inspite of contacting OP several times, OP failed to compensate him and there is no effort by OP to rectify the deficiency in service.  After many followups, OP refunded Rs.6,888/-  He has suffered financial loss mental stress when he was denied entry into the hotel room and had to spent more money to travel back . Hence there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP and prayed the forum to allow the complainant and award damages of 1 lakhs and Rs.25000 towards litigation expenses.

4.     OP appeared before the commission and filed the version contending that it has earned a good name and is renowned in the hospitality sector in the country. It do not own hotels, whereas it facilities booking in the hotels/ guest houses for its customers.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and complainant has suppressed material facts and has filed this complaint with mala fide and nefarious intension.  OP is one of the platform in the hospitality industries, it executes agreement with owners of the hotels and guest house and promote for hiring their rooms.  Its activity and role is limited to the extent of arranging the booking through its platform and the liability if any is on the owner of the hotel or guest house.

5.     It admitted the fact that, the complainant booked a room for the period 21.12.2019 to 23.12.2019. Any booking made is subject to the terms and conditions of “no warranty clause,” and bound by the usage terms.  Complainant has not come with clean hands and complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary as the hotel has not been made as a party, whereas Ritesh Agrawal who is managing the affairs of OP-1 is a made as a party.  The compensation can be awarded to the customer in respect of loss or injury suffered or negligence of the service provider, or for any deficiency of service attributable to the action of the service provider. Complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of OP and also loss/injuries suffered at the hands of OP and hence OP is not entitle for any of the compensation claimed, and further it has denied that the complainant has suffered harassment and humiliation at its hands, and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.     In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 :   IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2 :   PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

8.     On perusal of the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant booked hotel room at Gokarna through OP for his stay  between 21.12.2019 to 23.12.2019 by paying Rs.6,888/-.  It is the specific case of the complainant that when he reached the particular hotel he was denied the room facility on the ground that no room was booked in his name. It is also his specific case that he searched for room in some other hotels, but could not get any accommodation due to the Christmas season and he had to return by engaging a taxi by paying Rs.25,000/- along with his two friends.  Though he has stated that he paid Rs.25,000/- to hire the taxi, no document to show the same has has been produced.  It is admitted that a sum of Rs.6,888/- paid by the complainant has been refunded to the complainant by OP. 

9.     The very fact of refunding the amount clearly shows that, the room was not booked in the name of the complainant and the complainant was put to lot of inconvenience at Gokarna for want of accommodation as no room was booked in his name by OP.  OP ought to have informed the complainant much early regarding non-booking or non-availability of the accommodation or room at destination well in advance to the customer so that he could have made his own arrangement or drop the tour itself. In this case,  only the complainant after travelling all the way to Gokarna and on enquiry in the said hotel came to know that no room was booked for his stay.

10.   Afterward he return to his place and issued a notice informing the inconvenience caused to him and demanding to pay the compensation which OP has not at all denied. On the other hand, OPs contention is that, it is only a facilitator to book a room and for any inconvenience caused or loss suffered, the owner of the hotel or the guest house to be held responsible.  Even though the said contention may be true, whereas in this case, there is no deficiency or loss caused by the owner of the hotel or the guest house. Whereas, it is the negligent act of OP in not booking the room to the complainant’s convenience though it has received the booking amount, and also did not inform the fact of non-availability of the rooms. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT No.2:

11.   The complainant has sought Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation/damages for the financial loss and mental sufferance. The same has not been amplified by supporting evidence.  Further it is the cardinal principle for granting compensation that, it should be just, proper and reasonable.  Nobody can make out a profit or a lottery out of the said situation.  Hence we are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation and Rs.5,000/- towards damages if OP is ordered to pay to the complaint it just, proper and reasonable under the circumstances. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed in part with cost
2. OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages and further Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this commission within 15 days thereafter.

4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 09^th day of JUNE 2022)

MEMBER         MEMBER       PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the contract between the OP and OYO.

Ex P2: Copy of the email correspondences.

Ex P3: Copy of the SMS message.

Ex P4: Copy of the letter written by complainant’s advocate.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Shreya Agarwal Authorized representative of OP-1

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the terms and conditions.

Ex R2: Copy of the letter of authorization.

MEMBER         MEMBER       PRESIDENT

RAK*