Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/61/2019

Santosh Kumar Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-Rajen Mohanty - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.Kar, S.S.Sahu

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 61/2019

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Santosh Kumar Dash,

S/O-Narayan Chandra Dash,

R/O- Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Samblapur-768004, Odisha.                                  ………..…..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. Rajen Mohanty,

S/O-Late Gouranga Chanran Mohanty,

Prop. M/S Raj Travels, in front of Hotel Saket,

V.S.S. Marg, Sambalpur.

2. Sri. Ritesh Agrawal, CEO OYO Rooms,

H.Q. Gurgaon-Golf Course Ext. Road,

Sector-69, Haryana, India

3. Prop. Hotel Deorali, N.H. 31A, Pani House, near Tripti’s Bakery,

Gantok-737102, East Sikim.

4. Prop. Hotel Sonartari Resisdency, Panchayat Sada Road,

Shivmandir, Po-Kadamtala, Siliguri,

West Bengal-73401.………..Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-Sri. P.K.Kar, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.No. 2                                     :- Sri. S.Mohanty, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.1, 3 & 4             :-None

 

               DATE OF HEARING :26.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 29.08.2022

           Presented by Sri. Sadanada Tripathy, MEMBER,

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant has booked rooms from OYO Company (OP No. 2) through the travel agent OP No. 1 for a pleasure trip to Gangtok with his family and friends consisting 8 persons including women and children and accordingly booked three rooms vide booking ID QNAJ0297, OYO 6916 ‘Hotel Deorali’, Gangtok i.e OP No. 3 for three days and booking ID OYLZ2137, OYO 26227 ‘Hotel Sonartari Residency’, Siliguri i.e OP No.4 for one day by paying Rs. 30,687/- (Rs. 25,859/- and Rs. 4,828/-) in advance and booking was confirmed. After reaching at the destination Hotels on the scheduled date & time the Hotels OP No. 3 & 4 have flatly refused to provide any accomodation on the pretext that there are no such tie up between them with OYO Company i.e OP No. 2. The complainant contacted the local OYO authority, but he did not respond. Finding no other option the complainant forced to stay there again after paying at a higher rate. Against the actual booking of Rs. 25,859/- and Rs. 4,828/- , the Complainant paid total 53,320/- against the booking of Rs. 30,687/- i.e. extra Rs. 22,633/-. After returning from the trip when the Complainant asked for refund of his booked amount personally and through email and legal notice, thwe OP No. 1 & 2 did not pay any heed to it.
2. The written statement of O.P No. 2 is that the O.P No. 2 denied all the allegations and contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint. According to O.P No. 2 version, The OP No. 2 is one of the platforms in the Hospitality industries which operate its platform on the name and style of “OYO Rooms”. As per the policy & business of the OP No. 2, it executes agreement with the owner of several Hotels/Guest Houses in the country and promotes the said Hotels/Guest Houses for hiring their rooms. The role of the OP No. 2 is only limited to the extent to the arranging of the booking through its platform and the rest of the operational liability if any is of the owner of the said Hotel/Guest House.  On check-in date the Complainant contacted the customer care of OP No. 2 informing that the OP No. 3 have refused the Complainant to provide room in their hotel while stating that the OP No. 3 did not accept the booking of OP No. 2 company, but upon asking to shift the stay by the representatives of the OP No. 2 company the Complainant clearly refused for the same and choose to stay at the same property at higher price. The said issue of Complainant is already settled by OP No.2 in which a refund of INR39000/- vide UTR-KKBK0003630117 was already done and further no grievances were left on the part of the Complainant. The payment made by the Complainant was only for one hotwel i.e of OP No.3 and there was a pay at hotel for the OP No. 4 upon reaching. However, post receiving Complaint, OP NO. 2 gave an option to the Complainant to shift to another property, which was refused by the Complainant. The Complainant did not make any payment for booking property of OP No. 4.

The O.P. No. 1, 3 and 4 are set exparte.

103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant is the consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

 

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant is the consumer of the O.Ps?

The Complainant has booked rooms from OYO Company (OP No. 2) through the travel agent OP No. 1 for a pleasure trip to Gangtok with his family and friends by paying Rs. 30,687/- (Rs. 25,859/- and Rs. 4,828/-) in advance and booking was confirmed. Hence he is the consumer of the O.P No.1 and 2.

Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

In the Written version the OP No. 2 submitted that the said issue of Complainant is already settled by OP No.2 in which a refund of INR39000/- vide UTR-KKBK0003630117 was already done and further no grievances were left on the part of the Complainant but there is no evidence produced by the OP No.2 regarding the return amount and satisfaction note of the Complainant. Hence, the O.P No.1 and 2 are deficient in their service.

Issue No. 3 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

From the facts of both the parties, the Complainant is fully entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition.

                             ORDER

The Complaint is allowed. It is directed to the O.P No.1 and 2 to refund Rs. 53,320/- (hotels booking amount Rs. 30,687/- + differential amount Rs. 22,633/-) to the Complainant, Rs. 90,000/- towards mental agony, harrasment & suffering, Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the legal notices and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will carry with 12% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 29^th day of Aug, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.