Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/754/2018

Mr. Joginder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

BOOKING.COM - Opp.Party(s)

Aayush Arora

22 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                   RBT/CC/754/2018

Complaint No. 754 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Institution: 19.07.2018

                                                                   Date of Decision: 22.12.2021

 

Mr. Joginder Singh R/o Ho No.393 Phase 7, Mohali, District SAS Nagar, Punjab.        

                                                                                       …………....Complainant(s)

                                                Versus

1. Booking.com, Regd. Office at Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector 43, Gurgaon, through its Authorized Representative.
2. Akashdeep Hotel, Bhagsuang Road, Mcleod Ganj, Dharmashala,Himachal Pradesh, through its Authorized Representative.

…………....Opposite Party(s)

Complaint under Section 12of Consumer Protection Act 1986

Quorum

Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

Present: Sh. Damandeep Singh, counsel for Complainant.

           OP No.1 Ex parte

     Sh. Lavish Arora, counsel for OP No.2

Order By

Pushvinder Singh, President

 

1.                  The present complaint has been filed by the complainant(hereinafter referred to as ‘CC’) against the opposite parties(hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.4752/- with cost compensation and interest.
2. The CC alleged that he booked two rooms from online website booking.com for 2 nights i.e. 29^th March 2018 to 31^st March 2018 at Hotel Akashdeep at Dharamshala and the same was confirmed by the OPs. CC alleged that on 29^th March, 2018 when CC along with his wife and children reached at Hotel Akashdeep/OP No.2 for check in, it was informed to the CC by the OP No.2 that there is no booking confirmation from OP No.1 for the CC and accordingly the rooms were not provided to the CC. It is further stated that due to heavy rush CC was not able to get the rooms in any other hotel and accordingly has to stay at Skylark Guest House along with his wife and children. On 30^th March, 2018 the CC has to shift to another hotel as Skylark Guest House was not having rooms for that day and accordingly he along with his wife and children shifted to Amayra Guest House, where they all four have to adjust in one room due to non-availability of the rooms.
3.                 He further alleged that due to the negligence of the OPs the complete trip of the CC has been ruined as he was not able to enjoy his trip. He stated that cause of action arose  in favour of the CC and against the OPs when on 29^th March, 2018, the CC was denied for the room by the OP No.2 saying that there is no reservation for the CC through OP  No.1 and further prayed that the OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.4752/- the amount paid by the CC to the other hotels. The  CC prayed for Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation due to unfair trade practice and also sought Rs.25,000/- for cost of litigation.
4.               Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. None appeared on behalf of the OP No.1, accordingly OP No.1 was proceeded against ex parte. However, Sh. Manoj Arora, advocate, appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and filed his written reply/version. He stated that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2. The counsel for the OP No.2 has alleged that CC has suppressed the true and material facts from the Hon’ble Commission. OP No.2 has not received any booking from the complainant side or booking.com nor received any amount from the CC. It is wrong that there is any confirmation of booking on the part of the answering OP. He submitted that when there is no booking from the side of the CC even through the OP No.1 so question of providing any alleged room to the CC does not arise at all.  Moreover, the hotel of the OP No.2 was full on the said date, then the OP No.2 showed his inability to adjust the CC at that time. The OP No.2 has further took pain to provide good hotel the CC in peek session. The OP No.2 denied all other allegations of CC and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.                 The CC in his evidence has furnished his affidavit in support of the complaint and reiterating the facts contained in the complaint as Ex.C-1/A and he also produced the copy of  receipt of booking as Ex.C-1, copy of letter written by Manager of the hotel/OP No.2 as Ex.C-2, copy of bill issued by Skylark Hotel as Ex.C-3 and copy of bill issued by Amayra Inn Guest House as Ex.C-4.
6.  We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.
7.                The CC in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit and deposed reiterating the facts pleaded in the complaint, he has proved the booking confirmation as Ex.C-1 which shows that two rooms were booked for 29 March 2018 to 31 March 2018 in the Hotel Akashdeep Hotel and at the receipt of his booking confirmation it has been specifically mentioned that “your booking is now confirmed”. So it is clear that CC got booked two rooms for two days in hotel Akashdeep Hotel through OP No.1/Booking.com and booking was confirmed. It is further allegations of the CC is that he reached at hotel Akashdeep on 29.03.2018 along with his wife and children but OP No.2 informed that there was not booking confirmation from OP No.1 for the CC and accordingly the rooms were not provided to the CC so he stayed in Skylark Guest House Dharmshala on 29 March, 2018 and then he shifted to Amayra Guest House on 30 March, 2019 as the room was not available in Skylark Guest House for 30 March, 2018. The CC has alleged that his trip was ruined and he was not able to enjoy his trip. The OP No.1 did not come forward, however OP No.2 has come present and in written statement he stated that no booking was received by them from OP No.1 and when the CC visited their hotel, the hotel was full and there was no room available to adjust the CC and his family members. Then the OP NO.2 at his own level took botheration to provide hotel to the CC so it is not disputed that the CC along with his family members visited Dharmshala on 29.03.2018 and went to the Akashdeep Hotel  as there was no rooms in the hotel Akashdeep Hotel. It was got booked through OP No.1/Booking.com.
8.                   The CC produced bills issued by Skylark Guest House as Ex.C-3 to show that he stayed on 29.03.2018 in Skylark Guest House and also produced a tax invoice issued by the Amayra Guest House as Ex.C-4 to show that on 30.03.2018 he stayed in Amayra Guest House and as per the booking confirmation sent by OP No.1 in the hotel of OP No.2 the rooms were not provided to CC and  his family. So certainly, they faced botheration and even they went to Dharamshala for enjoyment and in fact they suffered harassment to trace any other accommodation to stay their. So the OPs should compensate the CC for harassment and they should also pay the litigation expenses.
9. In view of our aforesaid discussion the complaint is allowed partly and the OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the CC for mental and physical harassment. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses .Compliance of this order be made by OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the CC and the OPs as per rules.   File be returned back to the District Consumer Commission Mohali for consignment.
10.  
11.  

                                                                            

                           (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                                       President

 

                                                       

 

 

 (Manjit Singh Bhinder)

Member