PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 204/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Mr. Kishor Kumar Naik,

Bank Colony, Kuretola, Sakhipara, Sambalpur

Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha.      

Mob-8249945963                                                ……………..Complainant

Vrs

1. Chairman & Managing Director M/S Make My Trip(India) Pvt. Ltd.

19^th Floor, Epitome Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III,

Gurugram-122002, Haryana.

2. M/S Make My trip(India) Pvt. Ltd.

A,B,C, Tower, Epitome Biolding No.5, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III,

Gurugram-122002, Haryana.

3. M/S Hotel Radhika Inn,

57. Mayur Vihar Dholipiau, Near Mathura Train Station,

Mathura U.P.-281001.                                ……….....Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P.No.1 & 2         :- Sri. S.K. Naik & Associates
3. For the O.P.No.3                :- Ex-parte

Date of Filing:04.07.2024,  Date of Hearing :04.11.2024,  Date of Judgement :03.12.2024

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant through O.P.No.1 & 2 booked one Delux Room for himself and his spouse from 27.03.2024 to 28.03.2024 in O.P.No.3 on 25.03.2024 vide booking ID-NH221449315455158 PNR 0119540629. The Complainant paid an advance of Rs. 1871/- to O.P.No.1 & 2 through online mode. After check in Complainant found that the amenities which were agreed to provide by O.Ps were not available and bathroom was unhealthy. The stair was opened and adjacent to public road i.e. stay was unsafe. Complain was made to O.P.No.3 and after repeated persuation O.P.No.3 arranged M/S Krishnan Shadow, 91, Mayur Vihar, Dholi pyak, Mathura for one night. The bathroom was uncleaned and unhygienic, fan, air-conditioning woolen blanket and charging point are available but other amenities were not available.

After returning home online complaint was made to O.P.No.1 & 2 through mobile app but no result found. The O.Ps are deficient in their service for which complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P.No.1 & 2 submitted that on 25.03.2024 the Complainant booked one room for 27.03.2024 to 28.03.2024 and paid Rs. 1870/- booking amount. Booking ID NH22149315455158 was issued. After reaching O.P.No.3 the complainant raised multiple issue regarding the amenities and condition of the room. Complaint was forwarded to O.P.No.3 for resolution. The Complainant was informed that if he is not satisfied the Complainant can proceed with the cancellation post and booking amount can be refunded. The Complainant choose to stay at the property provided by the O.P.No.3, consequently no refund was initiated. The O.P.No.3 gave response through mail to O.P.No.1 & 2.

The Complainant is not a consumer of the answering O.Ps. The O.P.No.1 & 2 are online platform. The O.P.No.3 is responsible for the sharing details of the property including amenities availability. The O.P.No.1 & 2 are only facilitator and provides technology platform. As per section 79 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 the O.P.No.1 & 2 are exempted from liabilities.

3. Perused the documents filed by both the parties. The O.P.No.1 & 2 filedthe guidelines for approval of online travel aggregators(OTA). The O.P.No.1 & 2 is an intermediary under the Information and Technology Act, 2000. As an online Travel Aggregator(OTA) the O.P.No.1 & 2 are selling travel products and services such as Hotels/Accommodations etc. and established an online market place and earn profits on the discounts i.e. Commission offered by the suppliers. While entering into agreement with the supplier it is the duty of O.P.No.1 & 2 to see the benchmarks, Standards, Commission rates and others services required from such service provider.

The customers use the online platform going detail of amenities declared by supplier and it is assumed by the customers that the online platform has entered into agreement with supplier and declared accordingly. The consumers are least concerne about the provisions of section 79 of the I.T. Act, 2000.

From the contention of the both the parties it is clear that the Complainant when reached the O.P.No.3 found that the amenities are not available as agreed by the O.P.No.3 and declared by O.P.No.1 & 2. The Complainant opted for separate property for his stay. Taking into consideration the circumstances following observations are made:

1. There was no scope for the complainant to cancel the booking after getting in O.P.No.3. Free cancellation was available till 26.04.2024, 11.59 A.M. as per submission of O.P.No.1 & 2.
2. The O.P.No.1 & 2 have violated the guidelines of OTA issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Tourism and without examining the benchmarks, standards entered into agreement with O.P.No.3 and providing online platform service.
3. For providing online platform service the O.P.No.1 & 2 are being paid by the customers that may be named as discount provided by service provider or Commission.
4. The O.P.No.1 & 2 submitted the mail sent by O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.3 replied that as per demand of the customer and their satisfaction he/she shifted the customer to another property and paid for that property also. The O.P.No.3 not filed/sent any documentary proof that payment is made. Secondly, the suggestion mode by O.P.NO.3 for cancellation of the booking is not acceptable as the cancellation was valid upto 26.04.2024, 11.59A.M. as declared by O.P.No1 & 2. The O.P.No.3 is deficient in its service.  
5. The travellers in unknown places when find the accommodation is unsatisfactory and the service provider cheated them it is a panic situation and against the tourism policy of the Govt. of India. For unscrupulous service provider the government is loosing revenue.
6. The O.P.No.1 & 2 have taken service charges of Rs. 126/- and rest amount by O.P.No.3 out of Rs. 1871/-.

4. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the complaint the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the harassment to the Complainant and his wife. The O.P.No.3 made advertisement in network and service was not as per the advertisement. It is misleading advertisement by the O.P.No.3 and the O.P.No.1 & 2 without examining the amenities provided online service.

Accordingly, following order is passed:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed against O.P.No.1 & 2 on contest and ex-parte against O.P.No.3 the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs. 1871/- with 7% interest P.A. w.e.f. 27.04.2024 within one month of this order. In Case of non-payment the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realisation. The O.P.No.1 & 2 are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and O.P.No.3 also Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs. 1000/-.

Order pronounced in the open court on 3^rd day of Dec. 2024.

Supplied free copies to the parties.