Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/210/2021

Krishan Kumar S/o Lt Mihan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gibibo - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    210 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution:         27.07.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision: 04.08.2022

 

Krishan Kumar s/o Late Shri Mihan Singh, aged 50 years, r/o H.No.70, Azad Nagar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

Goibibo…. Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd., 18 Floor – Tower A, B and 19^th Floor Tower B, Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, Sector-25, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon -122002.

 

...Respondent.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Shri Arun Chaudhary, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant checked the availability of hotel on goibibo website for dated 10.07.2021 and booked 2 Deluxe Rooms for 2 adults, 1 child (8 years) and for 2 adults and 2 children (10 years, 11 years) respectively from 10^th July to 12^th July 2021. The payment of Rs.17793 was made through SBI card by him on 09.7.2021. The said booking was confirmed by the goibibo website and booking confirmation for the hotel named Waterfront Hill Resort, Chakrata, India with booking ID HTLWAG9XDV along with payment receipt was sent on his email on 09.7.2021 at 07:43 PM and also on his Whatsapp number. The complainant started their journey from Kurukshetra on 10.07.2021 at about 08:00 AM along with all family members and entered the Uttrakhand Barrier at about 11:00 AM at Ponta Sahib and then reached to Chakrata at about 01:30 PM. He reached at Hotel Waterfront Hill Resort Chakrata, near Tiger Falls at about 02:30 PM on 10.7.2021, but he was denied the check in by the hotel manager of said hotel, stating the booking was not taken, which caused him in big trauma. Due to weekend period, they could not found hotels and rooms nearby, due to which, they passed their night in the vehicle itself. On contacting the OP toll free number, no help was given by the OP, neither the refund was given to him. On 12.07.2021, the agent named Gauri from OP telephonically called him on his mobile that they are regretted for check in denied issues and sent an email to complainant on 12.07.2021 at 03:18 PM stating that “inconvenience caused is deeply regretted and your patients is highly appreciated”. The amount of Rs.17784/- was refunded by the OP on 15.07.2021 to him. Inspite of advance payment and proper booking confirmation sent by the OP, he and his family members with small children suffered a lot. The above act and conduct of OP amounts to gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, due to which, he and his family members suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OP.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, initially OP failed to appear before this Commission despite issuance of notice through registered post to it and was proceeded against ex-parte by this Commission on 31.08.2021. Thereafter, OP moved an application for setting aside the said ex-parte order against it, which was allowed vide order dated 03.01.2022 passed by this Commission. As such, OP filed its written statements stating the OP merely acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers. Once the booking is confirmed by concerned service providers, the same was shared with the complainant herein. The OP shall not be held liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the concerned hotel i.e. Waterfront Hill Resort, Chakrata, which has not been impleaded as party in the present case. On denial of check in by the concerned hotel, it closed down its operations and consequently, being a consumer-centric company, the OP duly processed the complete refund amount to Rs.17793/- on 12.07.2021 and as a gesture of goodwill, also processed voucher amounting to Rs.3000/- to the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal the said complaint.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OP tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 and closed its evidence.

6.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel of the OP and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                The complainant has argued that the complainant booked 2 Deluxe Rooms for 2 adults, 1 child (8 years) and for 2 adults and 2 children (10 years, 11 years) respectively from 10^th July to 12^th July 2021 through OP website and made the payment of Rs.17793 through SBI card by him on 09.7.2021. The said booking was confirmed by the OP and booking confirmation for the hotel named Waterfront Hill Resort, Chakrata, India with booking ID along with payment receipt was sent on his email on 09.7.2021 at 07:43 PM and also on his Whatsapp number. The complainant reached at Hotel Waterfront Hill Resort Chakrata, near Tiger Falls at about 02:30 PM on 10.7.2021, but he was denied the check in by the hotel manager of said hotel, stating the booking was not taken, which caused him in big trauma. Due to weekend period, they could not found the hotels and rooms nearby, due to which, the complainant and his family members passed their night in the vehicle itself. On contacting the OP toll free number, no help was given by OP, neither refund was given to him. On 12.07.2021, the agent named Gauri from OP telephonically called him on his mobile that they are regretted for check in denied issues and sent an email to complainant on 12.07.2021 at 03:18 PM stating that “inconvenience caused is deeply regretted and your patients is highly appreciated”. The amount of Rs.17784/- was refunded by the OP on 15.07.2021 to him. Inspite of advance payment and proper booking confirmation sent by the OP, he and his family members with small children suffered a lot. The above act and conduct of OP amounts deficiency in service.

8.                The learned counsel for OP has argued that the OP merely acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers. Once the booking is confirmed by concerned service providers, the same was shared with the complainant herein. The OP shall not be held liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the concerned hotel i.e. Waterfront Hill Resort, Chakrata, which has not been impleaded as party in the present case. On denial of check in by the concerned hotel, it closed down its operations and consequently, being a consumer-centric company, the OP duly processed the complete refund amount to Rs.17793/- on 12.07.2021 and as a gesture of goodwill, also processed voucher amounting to Rs.3000/- to the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal the said complaint.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant booked 2 rooms for 2 nights in hotel Waterfront Hill Resort, Chakrata, India from 10^th July to 12^th July 2021 after paying Rs.17793 through OP and said booking was confirmed by the OP vide email dated 09.7.2021 Ex.C-1 and Whatsapp message Ex.C3 sent by OP to the complainant.

10.              The grievance of the complainant is that when he reached to Hotel Waterfront Hill Resort Chakrata, near Tiger Falls at about 02:30 PM on 10.7.2021, he was denied the check in by the hotel manager of said hotel, stating the booking was not taken, due to which, he and his family members including small children suffered a lot and passed their night in the vehicle itself. He further contended that the OP telephonically regretted and sent an email on 12.07.2021 at 03:18 PM Ex.C5, stating that “inconvenience caused is deeply regretted and your patients is highly appreciated”. The amount of Rs.17784/- was refunded by the OP on 15.07.2021 to him vide documents Ex.C-6 & Ex.C-7 respectively. The above act and conduct of OP amounts to gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise.

11.              On the other hand, the OP admitted the booking of rooms by the complainant through it and cancellation of those rooms. The OP mainly contended that it merely acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers. Once the booking is confirmed by concerned service providers, the same was shared with the complainant herein. The OP shall not be held liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the third party i.e. the concerned hotel and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. But this Commission does not found this contention of OP plausible, in view of case law titled Myntra Design Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Monika Thakur, Appeal No.279 of 2019, Date of Institution 18.11.2019, Date of Decision 29.11.2019 by the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, wherein, it is held by the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh that “The Opposite Party cannot escape from its liability stating that it is not the manufacturer of the product and only provides portal for sale, because the Opposite Party allows the companies to project their products for sale on their portal, so it is their legal obligation to keep a check for the rightful delivery of the products sold through their portal services”. In the case titled Amazon Seller Services Private Limited Vs. Gopal Krishan, First Appeal No.27 of 2017, it is held that “In the said case, it was observed that it was bounden duty of the facilitator to ensure that goods purchased through any individual are manufactured as per quality standard. If the goods purchased through online are found not up to the mark, online portal through which goods were purchased, cannot escape its liability. Further, the contention raised that as per terms and conditions of sale, no liability can be fastened upon the appellant (Amazon), was rejected by this Commission by observing as under:-

                   “8……An agent, who sells a product, is duty bound to ensure its quality, and if the product is found defective, agent shall be vicariously liable for the loss caused to the purchaser, along with the manufacturer of the product. It was so held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kamer Chand & Anr. Revision Petition No.765 of 2016 decided on 30.3.2016”.

12.              So, in the light of above case law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in the case referred to above, this Commission has no hitch to say that OP, being the facilitator, cannot escape from its liability for any wrong done by hotel concerned. Since the complainant booked the rooms through OP well in advance, then it was the duty of OP to intimate the complainant about cancellation or reschdulement of the booked rooms by tie-up with the said hotel, in order to avoid any inconvenience to the complainant and his family along with small children, at the very last moment, but it appears that in the case in hand, both the OP and the hotel concerned, have not bothered to inform this to the complainant. There is no document on the file to show that the complainant was ever intimated in advance about the cancellation of the rooms by the hotel concerned. If the OP has timely intimated the complainant about the same, the inconvenience caused to the complainant and his family members, could have been avoided. It is worthwhile to mention here the complainant and his family wanted to enjoy the tour, but due to carelessness of the OP, it has become mess and they have suffered a lot without any fault on their part, and now just by sending an email, apologizing and returning the booking money to the complainant, doesn't reduce the grave deficiency in service of the OP. The above act and conduct of OP amounts to an act of gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, for which, they are liable to compensate the complainant for the inconvenience suffered by the complainant and his family members.

13.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant and his family members, due to deficiency in service on the part of OP. The OP is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total amount of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization, and the complainant shall also be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 71/72 of the Act, against the OP. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to records, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:04.08.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

          (Neelam)                                                               President,

          Member.                                                               DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.