| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 191 of 26-7-2019 Decided on : 20-06-2023 Manpreet Singh aged about 31 years S/o Sh. Lachman Singh, R/o Street No. 1, Near Rose Garden Wall, Hazura Kapura Colony, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Goibibo Corporte Pvt. Ltd., (Now) MakeMy Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office at B-36, Ist Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi 110 005 through its Managing Director/Chairman Chandra Paying Guest House Sopt, situated at Manikaran Road, Manikaran, District Kasol (India), through its Prop/Owner/Manager/Authorized Person .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. G S Jaura, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Varun Bansal, Advocate, for OP No. 1 OP No. 2 exparte ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Manpreet Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( Now C.P. Act, 2019 here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this forum (Now Commission) against MakeMy Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he alongwith his family members and friends had gone to Sri Manikaran Sahib and for the stay for the night of 20.6.2019, the complainant booked four rooms through online booking system of opposite party No.1 in Hotel/Guest House of opposite party No. 2. The complainant and his family members had to check-in on 20.06.2019 at 12:00 p.m. and check-out on 21.6.2019 at 11:00 a.m. and the booking was confirmed by opposite party No. 1 vide Booking ID: HTL4ZA98XY and opposite party No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.3583/- which was deposited by complainant from Bathinda on 15.6.2019 through bank transaction. It is alleged that accordingly, the complainant and his family members/friends reached the said hotel/guest house on 20.06.2019 at about 1:30 PM but complainant and his family members/friends were completely shocked and surprised to hear from the Manager/authorized person of the opposite party No. 2 that no such rooms have been booked in their hotel/guest house for the complainant and his family members for the night of 20.06.2019 through the opposite party No.1 nor the opposite party No.2 had confirmed any booking of four rooms. The complainant also provided the copy of the aforesaid booking confirmation letter but the opposite party No. 2 refused to provide four rooms to the complainant and his family members/friends. The complainant then made a phone call to the opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.1 also failed to give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter complainant booked four rooms in some other Hotel for which he had to pay excess charges due to the current/instant booking of the rooms as the rooms were not easily available in the Hotels due to the heavy rush of visitors but having no other alternative, the complainant and his family members were forced to pay the excess charges for the booking of four rooms in another hotel i.e. Hotel Himalyan situated at a distance of about 15/20 Kms short from the hotel/guest house of the opposite party No.2. It is further alleged that after returning back from Manikaran Sahib, the complainant again contacted opposite party No. 1 and requested for the refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.3583/- and also requested to pay compensation but to no effect rather the opposite party no.1 flatly refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. The complainant alleged that due to the abovesaid act of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation, loss of reputation in the eyes of his family members and friends and also suffered financial losses, for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party No. 1 to refund Rs. 3583/- and for directions to both the opposite parties to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- in addition to Rs. 5500/- as costs besides any other additional or alternative relief. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 1 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is mala fide, false, frivolous and misconceived and hence lacks merit. It has been pleaded that opposite party No.1, i.e. IBIBO Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and enjoys immense goodwill and reputation for providing superlative services to thousands of consumers. Besides other accolades bestowed upon and recognitions awarded to the opposite party, it has also been awarded as Best Travel Portal India by World Travel Awards, indicating the highest customer satisfaction and a fundamentally strong position in the industry. The opposite party No.1 is a consumer-centric company, which is managed through its online web portal i.e. www goibibo.com and mobile application namely Goibibo. The opposite party provides all the travel related unblemished services and information to its customers but not limited to air ticketing, railways ticketing, bus booking, hotel bookings at very competitive prices. The opposite party No. 1 merely acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets/ hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers. The opposite party No. 1, upon the request received from its customer, forwards the same to the concerned Hotel/service providers through softwares embedded on its web portal and upon receiving the confirmation from concerned service providers the Booking ID is generated and confirmed bookings/tickets is shared with the Customer. All the online transactions by the user of the website or the mobile application of the opposite party are governed by the website's and application's User Agreement, applicable to the person intending to purchase or inquiring for any products and/or services of the opposite party. Any person intending to purchase any product or avail the services of the opposite party, is governed by the terms and conditions of the User Agreement. It is further pertinent to mention here that for availing the services of the opposite party, the intended traveller has to enter into an E-contract with the opposite party by consenting to the terms and conditions of the opposite party by clicking on the "I Agree" pop up or button. Hence, the customers are bound by the terms and condition of the User Agreement of the answering opposite party. It has also been pleaded that to understand the issue in hand, the opposite party No. 1 mentioned details of booking made by the complainant through opposite party No. 1 : Booking ID: HTL4ZA98XY Booking Amount: INR 3,583/- Guest: Manpreet Singh, his family and friends. Hotel & Stav Details: Chandra Paying Guest House Four Rooms Check-in Date: 20.06.2019 Check-out Date: 21.06.2019 The opposite party No. 1 , being the facilitator between the concerned service provider and the intended guest was under the obligation to provide the confirmed booking/tickets to its customers. Once the bookings are confirmed by the concerned service providers, the same is shared with the intended guest. The opposite party No. 1 is not responsible or liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the Hotel. Once the confirmed bookings are shared with the customer, the opposite party is discharged from its obligations and duties qua the said booking. The opposite party No. 1 in order to assist its valuable customers duly mentions the complete respective details of the Hotel along with the contact details on its web portal and same is clearly visible to the intended travellers at the time of booking. Thus, it was the duty of the Complainant to check if the itinerary provided is as per its satislaction and requirement and could have raised the issue, if any, before availing the package. At the time of booking, the intended traveller has duly consented to the terms and conditions of the opposite party, wherein it is clearly stipulated that Goibibo shall not be liable on account of any deficiency in the services provided by the Hotel. The terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties are sacrosanct and both the parties are bound by the same. Further preliminary objections are that the complainant has miserably failed to disclose any cause of action against the opposite party as the complainant has duly admitted the fact that opposite party No. 1 has provided the confirmed booking of the Hotel "Chandra Paying Guest House Spot" situated at Kasol, Himachal Pradesh. On the bare perusal of the complaint, it is learnt that the complainant has filed the present complaint being aggrieved by the non-availability of the room for accommodation by the Hotel, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of Opposite Party No. 1 and that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that opposite party No. 1 duly booked the confirmed tickets and shared the same with the Complainant. Further, the Complainant himself confirmed the said booking with the Opposite Party No 2, therefore, Opposite Party No. 1 stands discharged of its duties and obligations qua the said booking. It is further pertinent to mention here that the Opposite Party No. 1 has also offered the alternative accommodation to the Complainant, which was initially consented by the Complainant. Therefore, the amount of refund towards the booking was utilised in another booking which was consented by the Complainant. Thereafter. the complainant in his own wisdom and in order to derive undue monetary benefits, has miserably failed to accept the same. Hence, the Complainant is not liable for any refund or compensation as sought for. In further reply, the opposite party No. 1 has reiterated its version as pleaded in preliminary objections and details above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 26.7.2019 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-7). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit dated 19-9-2019 of Ekant Mehra (Ex. OP-1/1) and documents (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/4) The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had booked rooms for his family and friends through opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 had confirmed booking with hotel/guest house of opposite party No. 2. It is further argued that on 20-6-2019, complainant reached hotel/guest house of opposite party No. 2 at 1.30 p.m, but the representative of opposite party No. 2 disclosed that no rooms were booked for the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 has not made any booking with opposite party No. 2 and on failure of opposite party No. 2 to provide rooms as per booking, the opposite party No. 1 has not made any alternate arrangement on account of which, the complainant had to book alternative accommodation at hotel Himalyan by making extra payment. The act of the opposite parties of having failed to provide rooms inspite of booking and thereafter failure to refund the amount, amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that opposite No. 1 merely acts as facilitator for booking the confirmed hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers and upon receiving the confirmation from the concerned service provider, booking ID is generated and confirmed booking/tickets are shared with the customers. It is further argued that deficiency in service, if any, is on the part of opposite party No. 2. Even it is also argued that opposite party No. 1 on being contacted by the complainant duly offered alternate accommodation with same facilities but the complainant refused, and has prayed for dismissal of complaint. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of the parties. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has moved an application and has prayed that M/s. Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. has been merged with MakeMy Trip India Pvt. Ltd., vide order dated 23-12-2022 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh. In view of the application, vide order dated 19-6-2023, name of opposite party No. 1 was allowed to be changed from M/s. Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd., to Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., It is admitted fact that complainant had booked four rooms for stay of his family and friends at Manikaran Sahib for the night of 20-6-2019. It is further admitted fact that opposite party No. 1 had received an amount of Rs. 3583/- from the complainant which is evident from the statement of account Ex. C-2. It is also admitted fact that opposite party No. 1 had booked rooms for the complainant in the hotel/guest house of opposite party No. 2. It is further admitted fact that opposite party No. 2 had not provided any accommodation as per confirmed booking which is evident from the admission of opposite party No. 1 that they had offered alternate accommodation to the complainant. From the admission of opposite party No. 1. it is duly proved on record that opposite party No. 2 had not provided rooms in their hotel/guest house. Although opposite party No. 1 has pleaded to have offered alternate accommodation to complainant but the opposite party No. 1 has not placed on record any document or e-mail to prove offer of such alternate accommodation. As such, this Commission is of the view that story of having offered alternate accommodation by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant is afterthought and a concocted version without any evidence. As such, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is duly proved on record. Moreover, the opposite parties have not even offered to refund the amount of Rs. 3583/- received from the complainant, till today. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3583/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. 15-6-2019, till realization and also pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- for having failed to arrange alternate accommodation for the complainant. So far as liability of opposite party No. 2 is concerned, it is proved on record through un-rebutted evidence that opposite party No. 2 refused to give rooms to complainant and his family inspite of confirmed booking on account of which complainant and his family and friends suffered harassment and had to arrange alternate accommodation in some other hotel. As such, business malpractice and deficiency in service is also proved against opposite party No. 2. Thus, opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to complainant on account of mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and financial loss suffered by complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 20-06-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) President
(Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
