Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1062/2019

Mohd.Shahnawaz - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s IBIBO Grpup Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1062/2019
Date of Institution	:	23.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	18.12.2023

 

                     

            

 

Mohd. Shahnawaz S/o Shri Mehbbob Alinawal, R/o House No. 6286, Maloya, Chandigarh   

 

...  Complainant

Versus

 

1]  The Managing Director, M/s IBIBO  Group Private Limited, Corporate office, 18th, & 19th  Floor, Tower A, B & C Epitom Building No. 5  DLF Cyber City, Phase-III Gurgaon -122002

 

2]  The Manager, Hotel Shyam Regency (OYO 19342 Shyam Regency) 001, Narkanda, District, Shimal (H.P)

 

…. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MRS.SURJEET KAUR      PRESIDING MEMBER

                MR.B.M.SHARMA             MEMBER

 

Present:

None for the complainant Ms.Kusum Kaushik, Adv. proxy for Sh.Nitin Bhasin, Counsel for OP No.1. None for OP No.2.

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant on 31.08.2019 booked a Classic (2X) room in Hotel Shyam Regency, Narkanda, Distt.Shimla (H.P) through Online booking of M/s IBIBO Group and made payment of Rs.1034/- vide receipt No. HDAR000033959646 and the same was confirmed by OYO 19342 - Shyam Regency, Narkanda and issued Booking ID No.HTLDXH28YW, dated 16.10.2019.   It is stated that as per booking, the complainant visited the said Hotel but was shocked & surprised when the Hotel Management refused to provide room stating that there is some disputes with the GOIBIBO Aps.  Resultantly, the complainant has to suffered a lot and ultimately booked a room in the same hotel by paying Rs.1500/-.  It is also stated that the said Hotel i.e. Shyam Regency, Narkanda Shimla (H.P) also issued a certificate dated 31.08.2019 (Ann.C-4) in this regard. The complainant agitated the matter with the OPs but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       The OP No.1-IBIBOI Group (India) has filed written version stating that the Opposite Party No.1 has duly provided the confirmed booking of the room, so no liability can be attributed to the answering Opposite Party.   It is stated that being a technology –driven, consumer-centric company, the answering Opposite Party has provided a system to the concerned Hotel wherein the concerned hotel has live inventory of rooms available at their end specifically for the bookings made through the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. GOIBIBO on the prevailing rates which are set from time to time and further it is the prerogative of the concerned hotel to keep its inventory  accessible till the time all the rooms are not completely booked.   It is submitted that in the present case, the concerned Hotel i.e. Hotel OYO 19342 - Shyam Regency failed to close the inventory despite being aware of the fact that the inventory is available to be booked from the end of the Hotel. It is also submitted that being a consumer-centric Company, the answering Opposite Party No.1 has duly refunded Rs.751/- i.e. the complete payment made by the Complainant for the said booking.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         The OP No.2-Hotel Shyam Regency has also filed written version stating that the complainant was told that the minimum charges, as fixed by government (Ann.R-2/1), would be Rs.1500/- but the complainant while showing the Online booking did not agree to pay the same.  It is stated that the complainant was demanding the room per Online booking @Rs.751/- and the answering OP refused to provide a room at such rate being below the rate fixed by government.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other assertions, the OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and thoroughly perused the documents on record including written arguments.   

 

5]       The perusal of the record reveals that the complainant admittedly booked the OP NO.2 Hotel through the OP No.1 and it was a confirmed booking but despite that, when the complainant along with his family reached the OP No.2 Hotel to avail the facility, the same was denied, as a result, he had to book the room by making further payment of Rs.1500/- (Ann.C-5).

 

6]       The plea of the OP No.2/Hotel that as the complainant failed to pay the minimum charges, per government rates, so he was denied the facility is not unacceptable.  Once the booking of the complainant has been confirmed by the OP No.2, then there was no reason for the OP No.2 to deny the facility to the complainant on reaching Hotel by taking plea/stands which was never earlier brought to his notice. Such act & conduct of the OP No.2 clearly proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, which certainly has caused immense harassment, agony and loss to the complainant. 

 

7]       From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice has been proved on the part of the OP No.2. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for deficient services and indulging in unfair trade practice, which includes litigation cost as well.

         This order shall be complied with by the OP No.2 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

         The complaint qua the OP No.1 stands dismissed.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18.12.2023                                                                               Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER