Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/642/2022

TANYA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR BNB - Opp.Party(s)

02 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/642/2022
Date of Institution	:	10/06/2022
Date of Decision	:	02/05/2024

 

Tanya Sharma, 2027, Victoria Enclave, Sector 50C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. AIRBNB, 4^th Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001.
2. Rudra, Flat No.12, 3^rd Floor, Tranquille Apartments, Opposite Bethany Inn Resorts, Vagatore, Anjuna Bardez, North Goa, 403509.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Akash Soni, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP-1 ex-parte
	:	None for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Tanya Sharma, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had booked a room for vacation in Goa in the resort of OP-2, running under the name and style of ‘Sky Villa’, Vagator (hereinafter referred to as “subject resort”) through the website of OP-1 with check in date as 2.3.2022 and check-out date as 6.3.2022 and the copy of booking receipt is Annexure 1.  On 6.3.2022, the check-out time was agreed with OP-2 as 13:00 hrs. The complainant alongwith her husband and six months old daughter stayed in the said room and when they were ready with bags packed and waiting for Mr. Mantu (care-taker of OP-2) for check-out formalities, he came around 1:00 p.m. and went to the room where the six months old daughter of the complainant was sleeping and pulled the bedsheets and pillows, as a result of which the daughter of the complainant fell down on the hard floor and started screaming and crying.  Due to the aforesaid act of the caretaker, daughter of complainant suffered injuries and she went in shock for which the complainant had also taken online consultation from the doctor. The complainant reported the aforesaid act of the caretaker to the OPs, but, instead of taking any action against him, they declared him as ‘Super Host’. In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. Neither OP-1 filed its reply and evidence, within the stipulated period, nor anybody appeared on its behalf, despite proper service, hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 6.1.2023.
3. OP-2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts and cause of action.  It is alleged that, in fact, husband of complainant namely Mayank Thakur had booked the above mentioned property through the website of OP-1 and on 6.3.2022 aforesaid Mayank Thakur was reminded by the OPs about the check-out time as 11:00 a.m., but, he sought some time for check out and his request was accordingly conceded by the OP totally free of cost without any additional payment or consideration till 01:00 p.m. Around 01:00 p.m. when Mr. Mantu reached the room, even at that time complainant and her family was not ready to check out from the room and they asked Mr.Mantu that they will vacate the room by 1:30 p.m. as their taxi will come at that time.  It is further alleged that Mr. Mantu started cleaning the room, where the complainant was present and when he started tiding up things and tried to remove the bedsheets, daughter of complainant, who was wrapped inside the blanket, fell down. The said caretaker immediately apologized to the complainant.  Averred that the aforesaid act of the caretaker is neither intentional nor there is any deficiency in service on his part.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that the complainant, her husband, Sh. Mayank Thakur and their six months old daughter had stayed in the room provided by the OPs at the subject resort in Goa and just before check out, the six months old daughter of the complainant, wrapped in a blanket, had fallen down while cleaning the room by the caretaker Mr.Mantu, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant or if the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OP-2.
   2. Perusal of Annexure 1 indicates that the complainant had booked the room in the subject resort and the same was to be vacated by 1:00 p.m. on 6.3.2023.  Perusal of email sent by the OPs clearly indicates that the OPs have admitted the incident dated 6.3.2022 when the six months old daughter of the complainant, wrapped in a blanket, had fallen down while the room was being cleaned by the caretaker of the OPs and the OPs had also apologized for the same. 
   3. Another copy of email dated 25.7.2022 annexed with the documents tendered by the complainant indicates that OPs had offered a goodwill, one time courtesy refund via coupon worth ₹4,320.02 to the husband of the complainant namely Mayank Thakur, but, the aforesaid coupon amount was never transferred /paid to the complainant.
   4. As it stands proved on record that the six months old daughter of the complainant had fallen down from the blanket in which she was wrapped, while cleaning the room by the caretaker of the OPs, and that too due to the negligence of the caretaker, the said act clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
   5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 10.6.2022 onwards.
2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amount, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

02/05/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member