DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : CC/100/2019
Date of Institution : 29.07.2019
Date of Decision : 02.12.2019
Harpreet Singh Sandhu aged about 36 years son of S. Hardial Singh resident of Namdev Nagar, Street No. 2, Barnala, District Barnala. …Complainant
Versus
1. Goibibo Group, (H.O.) Address; 19th Floor, Tower A, B and C, Epitome Building No. 5, DLF Cyber City, Phase-III, Gurugram-122002 through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.
2. Goibibo Group, 5th Floor, Good Earth City Centre, Sector-50, Gurugram-112018 through its Manager/Authorized Person.
3. Day2Day Camping Village Dharanga, P.O. Barot, District Padhar Mandi, (Himachal Pradesh) through its Manager/Authorized Person.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: Sh. Kamaldeep counsel for complainant.
Ms. Navreet Kaur counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.
Opposite party No. 3 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President
2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
3. Ms. Manisha : Member
(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Harpreet Singh Sandhu has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against Goibibo Group, Gurugram and others. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that he had booked a room in hotel of opposite party No. 3 through opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in the account of ID of Mr. Kamaldeep Goyal from June 28, 2019 to June 29, 2019. It is further alleged that complainant made the online payment of Rs. 2,400/- on 28.6.2019 through his friend Mr. Kamaldeep Goyal. After that opposite parties confirmed the booking vide booking ID No. HTLZ92WR74. The complainant reached the hotel of opposite party No. 3 alongwith his wife and minor son on 28.6.2019 but they told that there was no booking of room for you.
3. It is further alleged that then on the request of complainant his friend Mr. Kamaldeep Goyal contacted goibibo customer care toll free number and opposite parties No. 1 and 2 replied through SMS and Email that 'Booking Not found at Hotel' to the effect that they would respond within two hours or sooner but there was no response from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. Then my friend sent email and demanded refund of Rs. 2,400/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,000/- but there is no response till date. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to repay the amount of Rs. 2,400/-.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
3) Any other relief this Forum deems fit and proper.
Rejoinder also filed by the complainant in which he has reiterated all the submissions as mentioned in his complaint.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the answering opposite parties merely acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets/ hotel booking on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers through its web portal. Further, any person intending to purchase any product or avail the services of the answering opposite parties is governed by the terms and conditions of the User Agreement. It is admitted that that booking amount of Rs. 2,400/- was paid for booking for complainant and his family from 28.6.2019 to 29.6.2019. Further, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties and it is on the part of the hotel. Further, in case of any technical fault or lapse then hotel/hospitality service provider are liable to compensate the customer for the same. Further the complainant had admitted that the answering opposite parties have provided the confirmed booking of the hotel Day2 Days Camping Village at Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Further, complainant failed to make out any case against the answering opposite parties for alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Further, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint as hotel has been booked for Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and opposite parties works at New Delhi. Further, the answering opposite parties already refund booking amount of Rs. 450/- alongwith 50% of the booking amount as compensation which was duly accepted by the complainant himself.
5. On merits, it is submitted that complainant himself admitted that the answering opposite parties duly issued the confirmed bookings to the complainant and after that they discharges from their duties and obligations qua the complainant. However, they offered full refund of booking amount of Rs. 450/- alongwith 50% of the booking amount as compensation which was duly accepted by the complainant himself. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
6. The opposite party No. 3 not appeared before this Forum despite service through RC, so the opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.9.2019.
7. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of booking confirmation Ex.C-2, copy of message Ex.C-3, copy of emails Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6, copy of credit card statement Ex.C-7, copy of email Ex.C-8, copy of room charges Ex.C-9, copy of bank account statement Ex.C-10, copy of email dated 9.8.2019 Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit on behalf of Goibibo Group India Pvt. Ltd. Through Sh. Ekank Mehra Deputy Manager Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of user agreement Ex.OP-1.2/2, copy of print out of Ministry of Corporate Affairs Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of Board Resolution Ex.OP-1.2/4 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments also filed by the complainant.
10. It is admitted by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 that the complainant booked the room of hotel of opposite party No. 3 by paying the amount of Rs. 2,400/- and they confirmed his booking vide message to complainant Ex.C-2. It is also proved on the file that even confirmation the opposite party No. 3 refused that there was no booking of room for the complainant and his family as only due to that offered full refund of the amount vide message on August 9, 2019 Ex.C-11.
11. The first objection of the opposite parties is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as the hotel was booked at Mandi Himachal Pradesh and office of opposite parties is located at New Delhi. But it is proved on the file that complainant booked the room of hotel of opposite party No. 3 at Barnala through opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and also made on line payment from Barnala through his friend's account so partly cause of action also arose at Barnala and in our view this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint under Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. The second objection of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is that they have booked the room of the complainant with the opposite party No. 3 and they have confirmed the booking to him but it is the opposite party No. 3 who has not given the room to the complainant despite booking so the opposite party No. 3 is deficient in providing service. But the complainant has booked the room through opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and also made payment to them so he is the consumer of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and he has no direct link with the opposite party No. 3. Further, it is the opposite party No. 1 who confirmed the booking of the complainant by sending message to the complainant Ex.C-2.
13. Further, when the opposite party No. 3 refused to give room to the complainant alongwith his wife and minor son and he through his friend tried to contact with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 but they have given no response to the requests of the complainant at a very critical time when he alongwith his family faced much harassment due to the non booking of room by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 with the opposite party No. 3. In our view at that time it is the moral duty of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to make an emergency arrangement for the complainant if the opposite party No. 3 was not ready to give any accommodation to him alongwith his family as it is the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 who have received the amount from the complainant for booking of the room but they have not respond to the requests of the complainant and not made any alternative arrangement for him, his wife and minor son which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 already offered the complainant for the refund of the full amount of Rs. 2,400/- vide message dated August 9, 2019 Ex.C-11 but in our view the complainant is entitled to this amount alongwith compensation for much harassment, mental tension and inconvenience faced by him alongwith his family.
14. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint of the complainant against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,400/- to the complainant which was paid by him for booking the room. Further, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Compliance of the this order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
2nd Day of December 2019
(Kuljit Singh)
President
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
(Manisha)
Member