BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.08 of 2020
Date of Instt. 08.01.2020
Date of Decision: 05.11.2024
Arsh Mehra aged 27 years son of Sh. Rakesh Kumar resident of ND-121, Bikrampura, Tanda Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Goibibo, ibibo Group Private Limited, through its Director/Managing Director/Authorized Representative, 5th Floor, Goodearth City Centre, Sector 50, Gurgaon-122018
2. Spot on 37702 Hotel Atithi Spot, Udham Singh Market, 152002, Firozpur, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: None for the Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Gandhi, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
None for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that on 30.06.2019 at about 06:56 pm the complainant from his residence at Jalandhar, booked one room through the mobile app of OP to Ferozepur for 02.07.2019 and the OP, confirmed the booking on the same day at about 7.01 PM 37702 Hotel Atithi Spot, Firozpur vide Booking ID: HTLC6T4ZE5, for check in July 02, 2019 at 12.00 PM and check out time 03.07.2019 at 11.00 AM vide hotel booking ID 0052908653 for total amount of Rs.521/-. The complainant believed the assurances of the OP made a payment. However, the complainant experience with the OP was extremely bad full of pain, agony, negligence and unprofessional. The picture was directly in contrast to what they projected originally which amounts to unfair trade practice. The OP gave wrong information to the complainant as on 2.7.2019 when the complainant reached at the said Hotel Atithi they informed the complainant that there is no booking in the name of complainant as there is no tie up with the OP as the agreement between the OP and said Hotel has already been expired, this wrong information of the OP to the hotel's let to great discomfort, harassment and insulted for no negligence on the part of the complainant. The complainant was to unnecessarily deal with the hotel people directly despite the booking in advance and had to pay the amount to the OP. Then the complainant immediately called the customer care of OP, thereafter the OP assured the complainant that they will arrange room in another hotel in one hour but the said room charges is Rs.1500/-, the complainant told them that he has already paid the charges to OP, but they refused to arrange the room to the complainant for the said charges. Then the complainant arranged room at his own in another hotel in a very high cost. Thereafter, the OP sent email to the complainant with the promise that they will pay go cash plus Rs.100/- per 02 hours of delay. Thereafter, the OP failed to provide any room to the complainant, then the OP again apologize their mistake and send email to the complainant in which they clearly admitted their fault and admitted his 926 hours 17 min delay for providing the services to the complainant and also promised to compensate the complainant. Copies of the said emails as well as messages conversation between the complainant and OP are on record. But till date the OP failed to pay any amount to the complainant. The height of the negligence and unprofessional attitude of the OP was faced by the complainant at Firozepur where the hotel even booking was not even confirmed though assured in this regard by the OP and the complainant had to suffer lot of pain, agony and harassment due to this attitude of the OP and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.521/- paid by the complainant to the OP without any hassle or trouble alongwith interest @ 18% w.e.f. 30.06.2019 till its realization. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Forum with bonafide intents as an evident attempt has been made to gain undue advantage by misrepresenting and twisting the material facts and circumstances herein. It is further averred that the complainant cannot seek any relief from the OP as the complaint is malafide, false, frivolous and misconceived and hence lacks merit. It is further averred that the present complaint filed by the complainant, is absolutely frivolous, misconceived, malafide. Hence, it is an abuse of the process of law. It is further averred that the complainant has failed to approach before this Forum with clean hands, bonafide intents and on top of that has twisted and suppressed the material facts and circumstances of the present complaint. Hence, as such guilty of suppresio very and suggestion falsi. It is further averred that the present complaint filed by the complainant is with malafide intentions with a view to force the OP to accede to the whims and comforts of the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that on 30.06.2019 the complainant got booked one room through Mobile App of OP to Ferozepur to 02.07.2019 to 03.07.2019 and the confirmed hotel voucher was issued to the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the answering OP neither received any intimation nor received any booking amount either from the complainant or the OP No.1 with respect to the alleged booking of the complainant for 02.07.2019. As such, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OP and therefore no seller-consumer relation ever existed inter-schedule in light of the definition of consumer contained in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this backdrop, the present complaint deserves outright dismissal, with costs, qua the answering OP. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the OP No.1 very minutely.
7. It is admitted by the OP No.1 that on 30.06.2019 the complainant got booked one room through Mobile App of OP to Ferozepur to 02.07.2019 to 03.07.2019 and the confirmed hotel voucher was issued to the complainant by the OP No.1. The copy of the confirmed booking has been proved Ex.C-1/OP-2. The complainant had paid Rs.368/- to the OP No.1. The copy of statement of account has been proved as Ex.C-2 and copy of invoice issued by the OP No.1 has been proved as Ex.C-3. The complainant has alleged that when he reached Ferozepur at the Hotel Atithi, he was informed that there is no booking in the name of the complainant as there is no tie-up with the OP No.1. The agreement between the OP No.1 and OP No.2 has expired. He called the customer care of OP No.1 regarding the information received by him from the hotel and the OP No.1 admitted their fault and also admitted that due to their fault, the complainant has to suffer inconvenience and there is delay. The conversation between the complainant and the OP No.1 has been proved as Ex.C-4 vide which the OP No.1 has acknowledged the hotelier error and promised to resolve his issue. Ex.C-5 is the conversation between the complainant and the OP No.1, vide which the confirmation regarding the booking has been admitted by the OP No.1 and the acknowledgement vide which they have registered the complaint and request of the complainant where the complainant had to face checking issue as room was not available. The OP No.1 has also acknowledged the hotelier error in this message.
8. The OP No.1 has alleged that the OP No.1 has no liability as he is just a facilitator. He just got the tickets and room booked for complainant. There was a confirmed booking of the hotel rather it is the OP No.2 who is liable to make the payment. It has been alleged by the OPs that the payment was given to the OP No.2 which was received by the OP No.1 from the complainant. It has been alleged that the duty of the OP No.1 was discharged the moment the confirmed booking/hotel vouchers were issued to the complainant, but this contention of the OP No.1 is not tenable as the OP No.1 has failed to prove that the amount for booking was deposited in the account of the OP No.2 as alleged, therefore, the OP No.1 was not discharged from its duties. The OP No.1 has never disclosed that the agreement between the OP No.1 and OP No.2 has already expired. The OP No.2 has produced on record the statement of account Ex.OP2/1 which show that no payment was received in their account on 30.06.2019 which was received by the OP No.2 for booking the hotel and was allegedly sent to the OP No.2, but there is no entry in this statement of account dated 30.06.2019, even there is no entry regarding the depositing of the amount on 02.07.2019 when the room of the complainant was allegedly booked. Even the confirmed booking voucher Ex.C-1 show that the same has not been issued by the OP No.1 rather every information has been given by the OP No.1 only. There is no mention of the confirmation by the hotel. The law referred by the Ld.Counsel for the OP No.1 does not relate to the point in controversy in the present complaint. In the citations referred by the Ld.Counsel for the OP No.1 titled as ‘Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Birla Yamaha Ltd.’, vide Appeal (Civil) 9071 of 1996 and in case titled as ‘Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalakshmi’ vide Civil Appeal No.9711 of 2011 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in case titled as ‘Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier’ (1996) 4 SCC 7041 of Hon'ble National Commission show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission has not discharged the liability of the facilitator for the deficiency in service alleged by the complainant.
9. In the present complaint, the amount was deposited by the complainant with the OP No.1 booking was confirmed by the OP No.1. The complainant had to suffer because of the negligence of the OP No.1 as there was no booking of the room in the hotel of which the booking was confirmed. The complainant has been harassed mentally also. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. There is no deficiency in service and negligence has been proved against the OP No.2.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed qua OP No.1 and dismissed against OP No.2. The OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.368/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from 30.06.2019 till its realization. Further, OP No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
05.11.2024 Member President
