BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 22^nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

The complainant filed this complaint U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to refund the entire advance amount of Rs.65,044/- along with interest from 23.03.2022, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss and to pay cost of litigation.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant is an employee and manager admin of Wissen Technology Private Limited, who availed services of OP for hotel bookings to accommodate the team members of finance of Wissen Technology arriving from different places to stay at Bangalore. Complainant in good faith and trust, booked rooms through Fab Hotels Website, using the account of Wissen Technology Pvt. Ltd., as he is authorized person/manager admin. The booking ID’s are referred with reference No.8KMEPF, XUFEYL, UMP2QU. The booking works made on 23.03.2022 by paying advance amount of Rs.65,044/-. OP acknowledged the payment.

1. The Booking Ref 8KMEPF booking was from 24.03.2022 to 02.04.2022 in the name of Ms. Sweety Nainwani & Mr. Divy Pahuja.
2. The Booking Ref XUFEYL was booking from 24.03.2022 to 31.03.2022 in the name of Ms. Rani Girdhar.
3.  The Booking Ref UMP2QU booking was from 24.03.2022 to 31.03.2022 in the name of Mr. Ashok Kumar.

3. Complainant stated that based on the confirmation of booking by OP, team personnel of finance went to check-in their hotel accommodation, but hotel management has denied their check in on the ground that ‘no reservations’ has made on their behalf. In spite of booking ID’s and advance payment made which was duly received by OP. Since the team members arrived from different places to Bangalore for a stay with their luggage, were left with no other option, forced to find an alternative accommodation facility which caused financial loss, mental agony, hardship, trauma and lots of inconvenience to their planned schedule. Complainant further stated that he called OP to rise his complaint with regard to the same and sought refund as the service was not rendered by OP, OP given unsatisfactory responses. The few standard responses were automatic stereotype responses that issue will be resolved in 48 hours. Therefore, complainant alleges that the act of OP is very negligent and irresponsible towards the customer. Even after repeated mails, telephone calls requesting OP to refund the amount that paid towards booking of room. OP did not respond to the requests of the complainant. Therefore, complainant caused legal notice on 16.08.2023 calling upon OP to refund the amount. OP neither responded to legal notice nor refunded the amount as claimed by the complainant. Hence this complaint.

4. Notice sent to OP through RPAD which was duly served on OP. OP remained absent on the date of appearance. Hence OP placed Ex-parte.

5. The case is set down to lead evidence by complainant. Accordingly, complainant has filed affidavit evidence, reiterated as stated in the complaint along with 7 documents which are marked as Doc No.1 to Doc No.7. Heard argument of counsel for complainant and perused the material documents on record.

6. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

9.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

10. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

11. Upon going through the complaint, evidences and the documents produced by complainant is no doubt, he has booked 3 accommodations booked with assistance of OP website who has an network of 3 Star budget hotels in India with technology at the centre on Consumer Experience and budget operations. In Doc No.1, we observed that the executive of OP has confirmed the booking on 08.03.2022 and sent the location of hotel booked as per the instructions of complainant at hotel Velvette, Bellanduru, Bangalore which is at Doc.No.1. As per the Doc No.2, complainant has paid Rs.18,032/- towards booking ID No.VMP2QU which was confimed by OP from 24.03.2022 to 31.03.2022. With regard to the booking reference No. 8KMEPF was booked from 24.03.2022 to 02.04.2022 by paying Rs.28,980/- which is at Doc No.1. By perusing the Doc No.3, booking ID No. XUFEYL has booked from 24.03.2022 to 31.03.2022 for which complainant has paid Rs.18,032/-.. After going through the documentary evidences produced by complainant, the payment is confirmed and which was duly received by OP. Hence the payment of Rs.65,044/- is not disputed. When the payment was received by OP and the booking ID’s are allotted to the team personnel for their accommodation, OP is unjust to deny the reservation of hotels. After the denial, the complainant with no other option has arranged for alternative hotel accommodation for the team members, obliviously caused financial burden to the complainant. When OP has not rendered any services to complainant, even after the receipt of Rs.65,044/- complainant requested OP to refund the same over telephone, through E-mails. Complainant sent E-mail to OP from 08.08.2022 onwards  requested to refund the amount which is at Doc No.4. Even after several E-mail communications, he did not received the amount back from OP, complainant has produced a copy of legal notice which is at Doc No.5 dated 16.08.2022 for the refund. OP neither replied to the legal notice nor refunded amount as he claimed.

12. If in case the OP has acted genuinely without malafide intention, OP could appear before this commission to defend himself. In absence of cogent evidence by OP, the documentary evidence placed by complainant are unchallenged. Accepting the amount with an assurances of booking the accommodation for a delegates of complainant without intimation, denying the booking on the ground that ‘no reservations’ has made, is unjust and unfair, it definitely amounts to deficiency of service and also it exhibits the OP, indulging in Unfair Trade Practice through website that assures the consumers and receiving the money from them is affecting the public at large. Denying the check-in procedure of delegates of complainant after they reached hotel entrance with their luggages after the journey, it is hard to accept the same. It definitely caused inconvenience and hardship to them and it also affects to the reputation of company who taken responsibility of delegates. For that OP has to compensate to the complainant.

13. For deficiency of service and Unfair Trade Practice caused by OP, OP has to refund the amount he received from complainant and compensate monetarily by paying Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. Believing the assurances and representation made in the websites, many of the consumers utilizes such convenient facility through website for booking hotels from faraway places but such act of OP may lead harm to the public at large. Hence to stop such Unfair Trade Practice and should not repeat the act of OP, OP has to pay Rs.20,000/- towards punitive damages, U/S 39(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act same to be deposited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. For the foregoing reasons, we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.

14. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-     

ORDER

1. Complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to refund Rs.65,044/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 23.03.2022 till realization.
3. OP is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience, hardship caused to complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. OP shall also pay Rs.20,000/- towards punitive damages U/S 39(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to be deposited to Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days from the date order, failing which the Award amount carries interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of order till realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 22^nd day of SEPTEMBER, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL