Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/339/2018

Nitish Bhatia Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hotel Cross Road Home Stay Rooms - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar Bhatia Adv.

06 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	339/2018
Date of Institution	:	14.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	06.02.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Nitish Bhatia, Advocate aged about 28 years son of Sh.Raj Kumar Bhatia, r/o #5B, Army Flats, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     M/s Hotel Cross Road Home Stay Rooms,  Dhirdham Temple Complex, 23 Belambar Estate, Near Dhirdham Temple, Darjeeling, West Bengal-734101 through its Manager.

 

2.     Goibibo, 19^th Floor, DLF Epieome Building No.5, Tower –A, DLF Cyber City, Phase-IV, Sector 25, Gurgaon-12007 through its Authorized Person.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       

Complainant in person.

Sh.Satpal  Dhamija, Advocate for OP No.2

OP No.1 exparte.

                       

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant planned for holidays in the North East States and booked a room in the Hotel of OP No.1 for 04.06.2018 to 05.06.2018 with breakfast against Rs.1227/-, having booking code HTLBYU7H6V through OP No.2. The payment was made online which was acknowledged by the OPs. On 04.06.2018, he along with his wife reached at 6:30 P.M. in the hotel (OP No.1) but it showed its inability to provide the room stating that the same was not available.  He also approached OP No.2 but neither any help nor any alternate accommodation was provided by the OPs.  He along with his wife waited till midnight and were  forced to get alternate accommodation after midnight by paying Rs.4,000/-  as rent and Rs.1000/- as breakfast because due to peak tourism, no rooms were available in any hotel.  It has further been averred that he requested the OPs to refund the amount but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, OP No.2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the confirmation voucher for the booking was also shared by it and the booking of rooms was duly confirmed.   It has further been pleaded that it has nowhere been mentioned in the complaint that to whom the complainant talked to with regard to denial of check- in the hotel by OP No.1.  It has further been pleaded that being customer centric approach it always revert on the complaint but in the complaint nothing has been placed on record that the complainant raised the issue as well as in the complaint before it(OP No.2). The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         Despite due service through registered post, OP No.1 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.08.2016.
4.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.2 controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
5.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned Counsel for OP No.2 and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter.  Admittedly, the complainant booked the room with breakfast in the Hotel of OP No.1 through OP No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.1227/- for 04.06.2018 to 05.06.2018 against the booking code HTLBYU7H6V.
7.         It is also established on record that the OPs have failed to provide the room despite its confirmation and approaching them, resulting immense mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and his wife as they have to spend a sum of Rs.4,000/- as rent on the alternative accommodation in Hotel Red Rose, Darjeeling-734101 as is evident from the invoice placed on record. In addition to this, the OPs, instead of admitting their fault and apologizing the complainant for their mistake, preferred not to return the booking amount towards the room so far despite his repeated requests due to which he has to file the instant complaint. 
8.         Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we have, thus, no hesitation in our mind to conclude that the OPs have committed grave deficiency in service firstly by not providing the booked room and secondly by not refunding the booking amount Rs.1227/- to the complainant immediately and, therefore, the OPs are definitely liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment undergone by him and his wife.
9.         In the light of above observations, we feel that the present complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs and the same is allowed against it.  The OPs are directed to refund the booking amount of Rs.1227/- to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation for the harassment and mental agony on account of deficient services as well as the litigation expenses.
10.         This order be complied with by the OPs, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amounts shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual payment.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06/02/2019 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER