DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/91/2023
Date of Institution: 02.08.2023
Date of Decision: 02.09.2024
Sandeep Singh aged about 30 years son of Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of House No. B-XIV/2720, Gursewak Nagar, Dhanaula Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. AGODA INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 10th Flr, Tower B, Dundahera, Gurugram (Haryana) Pin code-122016 through its CEO.
2. OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, Ground Floor-001, Mauryansh elanza, Shyamal cross road, Nr. Parekh Hospital, Satelite Ahmedabad, Gujrat, Pin code-380015 through its CEO.
3. The Holiday vide (OYO Flagship 812274), SCO 12 Ambala Chandigarh Exp Way, Near UCO Bank, Preet Colony, Zirakpur Punjab, Pin code-140603 through its Manager.
4. Hotel Rosewood, (OYO Flagship 43968) SCO 7, Shri Ganesh Shopping Complex Zirakpur Kalka Highway, Wadhawa Nagar, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, through its Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Balraj Chibber Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Chander Bansal Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Opposite parties No. 1, 3 & 4 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against AGODA INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 2/F, Tower C, DLF Building No. 8, Cyber City, DLF City, II, Sector 24 Gurgaon Haryana. Pin code-122002 through its CEO & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant an Advocate practicing in the District Courts of Barnala, had taken the Additional District Attorney exam conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission on 30.07.2023 in Panchkula and the complainant along with his friend Balraj Singh who is also an Advocate in Barnala, travelled to Panchkula one day before the examination. It is further alleged that their purpose for this trip was to pre-emptively avoid any potential issues, find relaxation, and engage in last-minute preparation for the exam. It is further alleged that after arriving in Panchkula, the complainant and his friend Balraj Singh used the mobile application of the opposite party No.1 to book a hotel and the booking was confirmed at 06:51 pm and had the Booking ID: 1019526201. The reservation was made for two adults at OYO flagship 812274, specifically The Holiday Vibe hotel, located opposite No. 3. It is alleged that the complainant paid a total of 609.12 rupees for the hotel reservation through Google Pay. Upon arriving at The Holiday Vibe hotel located opposite no. 3, the complainant and his friend reached there via cab and upon attempting to check-in, the hotel manager refused their entry. The manager stated that they would not honor OYO bookings due to an outstanding balance dispute with OYO. The complainant inquired about the situation and expressed their confusion, asking why they were bearing the consequences of the hotel's business dispute with OYO and why the hotel continued to register with booking apps if they were unwilling to accommodate their customers or service providers. In response, the hotel staff engaged in bad-mouthing and unfavorable exchanges with the complainant. It is further alleged that this unexpected turn of events left the complainant and his friend in a difficult and distressed situation, unable to access the pre-booked accommodation despite prior confirmation. It is alleged that the complainant called the customer care of opposite no. 1, and then opposite no.2, however both calls were put on an extended waiting period, leaving the complainant on hold with no resołution in sight. The opposite no.2 agreed to book another hotel for the complainant and his friend, Hotel Rosewood, but the Hotel Rosewood also refused to accommodate them, citing payment issues with OYO as the reason. It is further alleged that to secure accommodation for the night before the exam, the complainant was compelled to pay an additional sum of 700 rupees to another hotel named Blue Nights, which was finally willing to provide them with a room. The complainant facing the unfortunate denial of service and mounting frustration, attempted to salvage the situation by requesting the cancellation of the bookings and seeking a refund of the paid amount and the complainant reached out to opposite No.2's customer care. However, the customer care representative of opposite No.2 abruptly cut the call, displaying a lack of responsiveness and concern towards the complainant's distressing circumstances. So, the above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to refund the paid amount for the hotel booking i.e. Rs. 609.12, including any additional expenses incurred due to the denial of service as well as the subsequent payment of Rs. 700/- made to the Blue Nights hotel.
- Further, to pay compensation for the damages, mental harassment and agony as well as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary submissions on the grounds that the opposite party No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and opposite party No. 2 is part of the OYO group of companies as OYO Group of Companies operates a travel technology platform that empowers entrepreneurs and small businesses who own/operate hotels and homes by providing full-stack technology. It is further alleged that opposite party No. 2 provides a website and mobile App where customers can search hotels and homes across the country and book rooms online and customers may check in at the hotel pursuant to the online booking made through OYO website or app, through offline demand channels such as travel agents or by walk -in directly to the hotel front desk. It is further submitted that the complainant made a booking and paid an amount of Rs. 716.62/- as booking amount for the period 29.7.2023 to 30.7.2023 in OYO Flagship The Holiday Vibe-ZKR275 through opposite party No. 1 App and approached the opposite party No. 2 for the first time on the check-in date i.e. 29.07.2023 and highlighted check-in denied issue, after which the agent on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 acknowledged the complaint of the complainant with apologies and asked the complainant to do another booking and as such, the complainant made another booking in the OYO Flagship 43968 Hotel for the period 29.7.2023 to 30.7.2023 with booking amount of Rs. 918/- (Pre-Paid Discount of Rs. 54/-) and amount to be paid Rs. 864/- (not paid by the complainant). It is further submitted that as per the TERMS AND CONDITIONS of the opposite party No. 2, if any check-in is denied then the opposite party No. 2 would provide either alternate accommodation to the complainant or would provide refund of the pre-paid booking amount and in the instant case when the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 with an check-in denied issue, the agent immediately provide the alternate accommodation to the complainant in OYO Flagship 43968 Hotel Rosewood - ZKR046. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party No. 2 in the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 2 and finally they prayed for the dismissal of complaint. On merits, the opposite party reiterated the averments as mentioned above and denied all the allegations of the complaint.
4. The opposite parties No. 1, 3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.9.2023 and order dated 15.11.2023 due to non appearance.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder against the version of opposite party No. 2.
6. The complainant tendered into evidence copy of Roll Number of Sandeep Singh Ex.C-1, copy of Email Ex.C-2, copy of screenshot of online payment Ex.C-3, copies of alternative booking confirmation messages Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8, copy of Roll Number of Balraj Chibber Ex.C-9, copy of extracts of chat with opposite party No. 2 Ex.C-10, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-11, affidavit of Balraj Chibber Ex.C-12, affidavit of Balraj Singh and Sandeep Singh Ex.C-13 & Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence.
7. The opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ricky Sharma as Ex.OP2/1, copy of letter of authorization as Ex.OP2/2, copy of term and conditions as Ex.OP2/3 (15 Pages) and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the complainant.
9. It is admitted case of the opposite party No. 2 that the complainant made a booking and paid an amount of Rs. 716.62/- as booking amount for the period 29.7.2023 to 30.7.2023 in OYO Flagship The Holiday Vibe-ZKR275 through opposite party No. 1 App and approached the opposite party No. 2 for the first time on the check-in date i.e. 29.07.2023 and highlighted check-in denied issue, after which the agent on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 acknowledged the complaint of the complainant with apologies and asked the complainant to do another booking and as such, the complainant made another booking in the OYO Flagship 43968 Hotel for the period 29.7.2023 to 30.7.2023.
10. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record copies of Roll Numbers of Sandeep Singh and Balraj Chibber i.e. Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-9 to prove the fact that the complainant alongwith his friend Balraj Singh had reached in Panchkula on 30.7.2023 for giving the exam for the post of Assistant District Attorney in Prosecution Department, Haryana. The complainant further placed on record copy of Email Ex.C-2 which shows that the complainant and his friend has applied for booking Classic Double or Twin/1 room/ July 29, 2023-July 30,2023 and the booking amount shown as Rs. 609.12. Ex.C-3 is the copy of screenshot of online payment which shows that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 609.12 online to the opposite party No. 1. The complainant also placed on record copies of booking confirmation messages which shows that the booking of complainant has been confirmed. The complainant further placed on record copy of extract of chats Ex.C-10 which shows all the chats of complainant with the opposite party No. 2. The complainant and his friend have also placed on record their detailed affidavit in support of the case.
11. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 argued that the agent on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 acknowledged the complaint of the complainant with apologies and asked the complainant to do another booking and as such, the complainant made another booking in the OYO Flagship 43968 Hotel for the period 29.7.2023 to 30.7.2023 with booking amount of Rs. 918/- (Pre-Paid Discount of Rs. 54/-) and amount to be paid Rs. 864/- (not paid by the complainant). It is further argued that as per the TERMS AND CONDITIONS of the opposite party No. 2, if any check-in is denied then the opposite party No. 2 would provide either alternate accommodation to the complainant or would provide refund of the pre-paid booking amount and in the instant case when the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 with an check-in denied issue, the agent immediately provide the alternate accommodation to the complainant in OYO Flagship 43968 Hotel Rosewood - ZKR046. But the plea taken by opposite party No. 2 in defence that the complainant was offered an alternative accommodation in hotel namely Rosewood-ZKR046 is not acceptable for want of proof as no email or any other documentary evidence has been placed on record by opposite party No. 2 in support of the above said plea.
12. So, from the perusal of the facts and evidence produced by the complainant it is established that after arriving in Panchkula, the complainant and his friend Balraj Singh used the mobile application of the opposite party No.1 to book a hotel and the booking was confirmed and had the Booking ID: 1019526201 and the reservation was made for two adults at OYO flagship 812274, specifically The Holiday Vibe hotel, located opposite No. 3. It is further admitted case that the complainant paid a total of 609.12 rupees for the hotel reservation through Google Pay. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that upon attempting to check-in, the hotel manager refused their entry and the manager stated that they would not honor OYO bookings due to an outstanding balance dispute with OYO and on this the complainant inquired about the situation and expressed their confusion and asking why they were bearing the consequences of the hotel's business dispute with OYO and why the hotel continued to register with booking apps if they were unwilling to accommodate their customers or service providers. It is further argued that this unexpected turn of events left the complainant and his friend in a difficult and distressed situation, unable to access the pre-booked accommodation despite prior confirmation. It is further argued that the complainant called the customer care of opposite No. 1 and opposite No. 2, however both calls were put on an extended waiting period, leaving the complainant on hold with no resołution in sight. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the opposite No. 2 agreed to book another hotel for the complainant and his friend Hotel Rosewood, but the Hotel Rosewood also refused to accommodate them, citing payment issues with OYO. It is further argued that to secure accommodation for the night before the exam the complainant was compelled to pay an additional sum of Rs. 700/- to another hotel named Blue Nights, which was finally willing to provide them with a room. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that due to the above said act and conduct of opposite party No. 2 the complainant and his friend have suffered lot of mental agony, harassment and financial loss.
13. On the other hand, the opposite parties No. 1, 3 & 4 have preferred to remain exparte and no one has come forwarded from the side of them to contest the allegations of the complainant, which are otherwise appears to be genuine and supported by various documents. Therefore, we are of the view that after the receipt of intimation qua the denial of the confirmed booking to the complainant it was the duty of the opposite party No. 2 to provide the best possible accommodation to the complainant but in the present case the opposite party No. 2 was found deficient while rendering services to the complainant. Hence, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 2. Despite taking the booking the opposite party No. 3 had not provided accommodation is also deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 3. It is in between the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 regarding their disputes. The consumer should not be suffered for their disputes.
14. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No. 2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 609.12/- and Rs. 700/- to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant and the opposite party No. 3 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant on account of consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses for causing mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
2nd Day of September, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
