Haryana

Panchkula

CC/560/2019

VIKRAM JAGLAN . - Complainant(s)

Versus

AGODA INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

10 Jan 2024

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	560 of 2019
Date of Institution		24.09.2019
Date of Decision	:	10.01.2024

 

 

Vikram Jaglan aged 29 years, son of Sh. Suresh Kumar Jaglan, resident of House No.436, Sector-21, Panchkula, presently residing at House No.495, Sector-26, Panchkula.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                   

1.     Agoda International Pvt. Ltd. 2/F, Tower-C, DLF Building No.8,   Cyber City, DLF City-II, Sector-24, Gurugram through its       Managing Director.

2.     OYO, 9^th Floor, Spaze Palazo, Sector-69, Gurugram, Haryana-    122001, through its Managing Director.

3.     Sun Village Hotel, Near Lake Mist Turn Kempty, District Tirhi      Garhwal, Uttarkhand, through its manager Director.

4.     Sunder Bhat, Manager, Sun Village Hotel, Near Lake Mist Turn   Kempty, District Tirhi Garhwal, Uttarkhand.

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 Before:             Sh. Satpal, President.

                         Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                         Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Vikram Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Anshul Mangla, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for OP No.2.

                        OPs No.3 & 4 already ex-parte vide order dated                      19.11.2019.

 

                         

                                                ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that  the complainant had planned to go for Mussoorie trip with his joint family and for this purpose, on 19.04.2019, he booked 3 classic Double Room for one night with the OPs no.1 & 2 through online booking from Panchkula and paid an amount of Rs.3294.96. The OPs No.1 & 2 sent the confirmed booking to the complainant vide booking ID No.356113733, qua booking of 3 rooms in the hotel of the OP No.3. The complainant was assured qua good location of the hotel i.e. OP No.3 and was further assured that the OPs No.1 & 2 had tie up with hotels. As per assurance given by OPs No.1 & 2, the complainant alongwith his family members reached at the hotel i.e. OP No.3 and informed the OP no.4 qua their confirmed booking ID. The OP no.4 declined to provide the rooms to the complainant and his family members stating that OPs No.3 & 4 had no tie up arrangement with OPs No.1 & 2. It is stated that the Ops No.1 & 2 were contacted but to no avail. The OP No.4 i.e. Manager of the hotel i.e. OP No.3 was requested to provide atleast one rooms in the hotel or cancel the booking but the request made by the complainant was declined. A complaint was lodged with the local police. The OPs No.1 & 2 had failed to resolve the issue despite the receipt of several emails from the complainant. A legal notice was sent on 02.09.2019 but to no avail. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.                                                                                                                              

2.Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed its written statement, contesting the complaint, by raising the preliminary objections that it has wrongly been arrayed as OP No.1 in the present complaint and in this regard, a separate application seeking deletion of its name from the arrays of the parties has been filed. It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable due to mis-joinder of the OP No.1 as it has absolutely no connection with the dispute alleged in the complaint. It is submitted that the complainant had already received a refund or booking amount as per email dated 30.04.2019 from Axis Bank. It is submitted that impleadment of Axis Bank necessary and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score also. No services whatsoever had been provided by OP No.1 to the complainant. The complainant does not fall under the category of consumer qua OP No.1 as no payment whatsoever was ever paid by the complainant to OP No.1. No cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant and against the OP No.1. It is submitted that the OP No.1 was incorporated in India in the year 2012 and has its registered address at Level 2, Tower C, Building No.8, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002. The Agoda India provides support services such as monitoring and research on market conditions, identifying opportunities in the local market, and liaising with local market partners to Agoda international Pte Ltd., which is incorporated as a private limited company in Sinagpore. It is submitted that the Agoda International, in turn, consolidate similar support services from other subsidiaries around the world, and provides consolidated support services to Agoda Company Pte Ltd. incorporated as a private limited company in Singapore. The Agoda Singapore operates the Agoda booking platform i.e. www.agoda.com and provides services to consumers, worldwide. It is submitted the OP No.1 does not provide services to any other party and, pertinently, does not provide any services to consumers of Agoda Singapore, such as the complainant. It is submitted that the platform i.e. www.agoda.com is owned and operated by Agoda Singapore and OP No.1 has no role to play in the services provided by Agoda Singapore. The OP No.1 is legally independent from Agoda Singapore and has no control over the operations of Agoda Platfrom or the hotel booking services offered through it. It is submitted that, as per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant had allegedly made a reservation at the Sun Village Hotel, Mussoorie(OP No.3)- a hotel  managed  owned  and managed by OP No.4. The reservation dates were from 19.04.2019 to 20.04.2019 for three ‘classis double rooms’. These bookings were done at the website www.agoda.com. As per the allegations in the complaint, when the complainant reached the hotel, the OP No.4 refused to honor the reservation. It is submitted that OP No.3 is a partner hotel of OP No.2 and as per the policy and business of the OP No.2, it executes agreements with the owners hotels/guest houses in the country and promote the said hotels/guest houses for renting their rooms. As per the terms of use applicable to Agoda Singapore, it was agreed between them that the company would not be responsible for the acts and omissions on the part of hotels.

                On merits, the pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                Upon notice, the OP no.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not come with clean hands. It is submitted that  the OP No.2  is one of the platform  in the Hospitality  industries,  which operates its platform in the name and style of “OYO Rooms and as per the policy  and 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. It is submitted that the role  of the OP No.2 is only limited to the extent of  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. It is submitted that the complainant did not confirm his arrival or time pertaining to his arrival at the hotel i.e. OP No.3, which was a necessary requirements as per booking policy of OP No.1. Further as per usage terms closed no liability can be fastened upon it on any lapses and deficiencies on the part of any hotel.

                On merits, it is submitted that the OP No.2 had sent no confirmation email qua booking to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant did not make any communication with OP No.2 on or before reaching at the hotel(OP No.3). Rest of the allegations alleged by the complainant have been denied and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                Notices were issued to the OPs No.3 & 4 through registered post, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.3 & 4; hence, they were deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OPs No.3 & 4, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 19.11.2019.

3.The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-1/A along with documents as Annexure R-1/1 to R1/4 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-2/A along with documents as Annexure R-2/1 to R2/3 and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OP No.1 & OP No.2, and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by the Ops No. 1, minutely and carefully.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) of the complainant, contended that  the rooms facility was denied to the complainant and his family members despite the confirmed booking provided by OPs vide booking ID No.356113733. It is contended that the complainant had made the payment of Rs.3,294.46 qua said confirmed booking vide receipt dated 19.04.2019(Annexure C-3). The learned counsel contended that the complainant had sent the emails to OP No.1 seeking assistance qua providing of rooms by OPs No.3 & 4 and also lodged a police complaint on the same day vide application(Annexure C-5). The learned counsel contended that there was no valid justification on the part of OPs to deny the rooms to the complainant and his family members qua the confirmed booking no.356113733 as conveyed by them vide Annexure C-1 and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1 vehemently controverted the contentions of the complainant qua booking made by OP No.1 and contended that no communications qua alleged booking was ever made by or on behalf of the OP No.1. It is contended that the alleged booking was made through the website i.e. www.agoda.com on 19.04.2019 vide ID No.356113733, which is  owned and operated by M/s Agoda Company Pvt. Ltd., which is a Private Limited Company registered in Singapore. The learned counsel argued that the complainant had made the communications with M/s Agoda Company Pvt. Ltd. qua booking of the hotel i.e. OP No.3 and in this regard, our attention was drawn towards the booking confirmation email dated 19.04.2019(Annexure C-1), receipt dated 19.04.2019(Annexure C-3) and correspondence (Annexure C-6). It was argued that the OP no.1 is a Private Limited Company, duly registered with Registrar of Companies, New Delhi, which has no role to play in the services provided by M/s Agoda Company Pvt. Ltd. (Singapore), which is legally independent and OP No.1 has no control over the operations of the website i.e. www.agoda.com or the hotel booking services availed through it. It is argued that the OP No.1 does not provide any services to the consumer of M/s Agoda Company Pvt. Ltd.(Singapore) and thus, there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OP No.1; hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

7.The learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.2, during arguments, reiterating the averments as made in the written statement as also in the affidavit(Annexure R2/A), contended that as per  the agreement between  the OPs No.2 & 3, no liability can be fastened upon OP No.2 qua any deficiency on the part of hotel i.e. OP No.3. It was argued that the OP No.3 was deficient, who had failed to provide the check-in facility to the complainant. The learned counsel argued that the role of the OP No.2 is limited only to the extent of 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 and thus, it is prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed being meritless and baseless.  

8.It is not in dispute that the complainant was provided the confirmed booking vide ID No.356113733(Annexure C-1) for the stay at the hotel, namely, Sun Village Hotel, Near Lake Mist Turn Kempty, District Tirhi Garhwal, Uttarkhand(OP No.3). The payment of Rs. 3,294.96 made by the complainant qua said booking vide receipt (Annexure C-3) dated 19.04.2019 is also not in dispute. 

9.The OP No.1 has denied its liability vide separate application dated 28.01.2022 as also the averments made in its written statement only on the ground that the booking was made with Agoda Company Pte Ltd. incorporated  as a Private Limited Company in Singapore, which is a separate and independent Company from OP No.1.

10.The plea taken by the OP No.1 denying its liability is not acceptable because as per the averments made in para no.3 of preliminary objections in its written statement, it is engaged in liaising with local market partners to Agoda International Pte Ltd., which is incorporated as a Private Limited Company in Singapore and the Agoda International, in turn, is found providing services to Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. As such, the Agoda Singapore and Agoda India(OP No.1) are subsidiaries, working in nexus with each other under Agoda International. Admittedly, one of the Director of OP No.1 and the Agoda Singapore is the same. Moreover, the legal notice was sent by the complainant to OP No.1 i.e. Agoda India, which was not forwarded by OP No.1 to Agoda Singapore, who had allegedly provided the confirmed booking to the complainant. Even during the pendency of the present complaint, the OP No.1 could have sent the communications to its sister concern i.e. Agoda Singapore but it had preferred neither to redress the genuine grievances of the complainant nor send his grievances to the concerned  company, therefore, the OP No.1 cannot be permitted to avoid its liability in the matter.

11.Now coming to the version of the OP no.2, it is found that it had taken a diametrically opposite plea in its defence. The plea taken by it in its para no.5 of preliminary objections of written statement that the complainant did not confirm his arrival at hotel i.e. OP No.3 on 19.04.2019 is totally wrong and false as a police complaint has been found on record as Annexure C-5, which was lodged on 19.04.2019 itself by the complainant after his arrival along with his family members at the hotel(OP No.3). Further, the emails were also sent by the complainant, which are available on record as Annexure C-6. The plea taken by the OP No.2 that it has no role in providing the rooms service etc. is also totally erroneous and incorrect and thus, it is liable to compensate the complainant for its deficiency on its part.

12.Now adverting to the liability of OP No.3, it is found that the OP No.3  has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite service of notice and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.11.2019 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant against it go unrebutted and uncontroverted and accordingly, OP No.3 is held liable since it had denied the stay facility to the complainant and his family members despite the confirmed booking vide booking ID No. 356113733.

13.As per the discussion made above, the OP No.1, OP No.2 as well as OP No.3 have been found deficient, for which, they are liable, jointly and severally, to compensate the complainant. The present complaint is dismissed qua Op No. 4.

14.Coming to relief, it is found that a sum of Rs.3,294.96 was credited into account of the complainant on 30.04.2019 as is evident from the email sent by Axis Bank to the complainant. Thus, the main grievance of the complainant stands redressed and he is now to be compensated for the inconvenience and discomfort faced by him and his family member on 19.04.2019.

15.As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1, 2 & 3:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him and his family members.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant on account of litigation charges.

 

16. The OPs No.1, 2 & 3 shall comply with the directions/ order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1, 2 & 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 10.01.2024

 

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President