Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/48/2019

Parvez Chugh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goibibo - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Goyal Adv. & Manpreet Singh Dua Adv.

15 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	48 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	28.01.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	15.12.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Parvez Chugh aged about 34 years son of Sh.Manohar Lal Chugh, resident of H.No.1077, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Goibibo, ibibo Web Private Limited, having its Head Office at 19^th Floor, tower A, B and C, Epitome Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, Phase-II, Gurugram 122002 through is authorized signatory.

 

2]  Sh.Sanjay Bhasin, Chief Executive Officer, Goibibo, ibibo Web Private Limited, having its Head Office at 19^th Floor, Tower A, B and C, Epitome Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, Phase-II, Gurugram 122002

 

3]  A Seventeen Hotel, (also known as Oyo 707 A-17), near Masjid, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024 through its Proprietor Sh.Dinesh Marwaha.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.S.K.SARDANA       MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Sh.Manpreet Singh Dua, Adv. for complainant

   None for OPs No.1 & 2

   OP NO.3 exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant, an Advocate by profession, having cases listed before Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi on 11/12.12.2018, booked a Three Star Hotel namely Oyo 707 A-17, Near Masjid, Defence Colony, New Delhi (OP No.3) through OPs No.1 & 2 for 11.12.2018 by making payment of Rs.2500/-.  The room booking was confirmed by OPs (Ann.C-1). However, on reaching the Hotel on 11.12.2018 at evening, the Hotel staff denied check-in to the complainant, despite confirmed booking, saying that no room was available in the Hotel for 11^th & 12^th Dec., 2018.  The proprietor of said Hotel also gave in writing that though a booking was made in the name of complainant but the room was not available for stay from 11.12.2018 to 12.12.2018 (Ann.C-2).  Ultimately, the complainant had to travel back to Chandigarh and then again to New Delhi.  Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice to the OPs qua said deficient act performed on 17.12.2018 in response to which the OP No.1 offered double refund of the booking amount and some bogus non promotional go cash points, which complainant refused (Ann.C-8 colly.).  It is stated that due to above said deficient act & conduct of the OPs, the complainant not only suffered financial loss but had to go through immense mental agony & physical harassment.  Hence, present complaint has been preferred.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that OP No.1 acts as merely a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets/hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service provider    wherein the answering OPs upon the request received from its customers, forwards the same to the concerned Hotel service providers and upon receiving the confirmation from the concerned Hotel service providers, the booking ID is generated and confirmed bookings/tickets is shared with the customer.  It is submitted that answering OPs are not responsible or liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the Hotel and once the confirmed bookings are shared with the customer, the answering OP is discharged from its obligation and duties qua the said booking. It is stated that OP No.3 has denied the check-in to the complainant on account of non-availability of the room and not on the ground that answering OPs failed to book the room on his behalf and that answering OPs cannot be made liable on account of default made by Hotelier i.e. OP NO.3.  It is denied that the complainant has requested for an alternate accommodation with answering OPs.  It is pleaded that the answering OPs despite having no fault on their part has duly replied the legal notice dated 17.12.2018 and duly offered the complainant the double refund along with Rs.2000/- as go cash voucher totaling to Rs.10,000/- which he rejected.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs NO.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         OP No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and perused entire documents and evidence on record.

 

5]       The record is evident of the fact that the OPs not only rendered deficient services towards the complainant but are also indulged into unfair trade practice, which in our considered view is not only affecting the complainant in particular but is presumed to have an impact on consumers at large.  It is evident on record vide Ann.C-1 that the booking by the complainant through Gobibo/OP No.1 & 2 portal got confirmed for his stay at Hotel OYO 707 A-17, Near Masjid, Defence Colony, Delhi (OP NO.3). Ann.C-2 further reveals that the complainant was not given any room in the hotel of OP No.3 whereas the booking was confirmed and when the issue was raised with the OPs, the OP NO.1 acknowledging its fault and in order to compensate the complainant has offered double the booking amount and 3000 Non Promotional Go Cash vide email dated 16.1.2019 (Ann.C-8 colly.). The correspondence exchanged between the parties reveals that the repeated offers made by the OPs were not accepted by the complainant for the reason that the offers so made were not in consonance to harassment suffered by him due to the deficient services rendered and unfair trade practice resorted to by the OPs.

 

6]       From the given facts, we can well assume the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and of course of a common person at the juncture when someone, having confirmed booking, is been refused to be accommodated. Such kind of mental/physical harassment could not be compensated in terms of money but certainly in order to mitigate the suffering not only a reasonable amount of compensation is required to be imposed but also this practice needs to be curbed, where after giving confirmation of booking, the accommodation/service is denied at the last moment and the consumer is taken by surprise.  We feel that it hardly effects to the parties who book the respective venue while sitting in their respective offices with no heed to give the proper follow up in order to ensure the complete services being provided.  They don’t even realize the harassment suffered by the person concerned/consumer at that very juncture and acting professionally, they just offer compensation in the form of peanuts for their deficient services coupled with unfair trade practice.  Thus keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the given complaint, all the OPs in the present complaint are equally liable for this kind of unfair trade practice resorted to by them and also for their deficient services. 

 

7]       Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by the OPs No.1 to 3 is proved.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against OPs No.1 to 3 with following directions to refund the booking amount of Rs.2425/- to the complainant and also to pay a compository amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment & agony as well as litigation expenses.

 

         As it has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs that such kind of unfair trade practice resorted to by the OPs needs to be curbed, thus, an amount of Rs.2 lacs (Two Lakh Only) is being imposed as a penalty upon the OPs.  The OPs No.1 & 2 and OP No.3 are thus directed to deposit an amount of Rs.One Lakh each in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.

          This order shall be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary (SCDRC), U.T. Chandigarh, for necessary action.

Announced

15^th December, 2022                                                       sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (S.K.SARDANA)

MEMBER