DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 244
Instituted on: 01.06.2017
Decided on: 03.10.2017
Rakesh Kumar Singla aged 45 years son of Shri Sham Lal, resident of near OBC Bank, Lehragaga, District Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Goibibo, 5th Floor, Good Earth City Centre, Sector 50, Gurgaon-122018, Haryana India.
2. Hotel Bhakti Dham, Behind Iskon Temple, Raman Reti, Varindavan, District Mathura, UP, through its Manager/Managing Director/Proprietor/Partner.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri V.K.Singla, Adv.
For OP No.1 : Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.
For OP No.2 : Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 2 by getting booked two hotel rooms in Hotel Bhakti Dham (three star hotel) at Vrindaban through their website vide booking ID number HTL3QKB7BJ dated 2.3.2017 for Rs.884/-, booking ID number HTLF6YXRUH dated 2.3.2017 for Rs.884/-, booking ID number HTLGAFKBEB dated 2.3.2017 for Rs.1417/-, booking ID number HTLAT955P5 dated 2.3.2017 for Rs.1304/-, booking ID number HTLXS8L6YG dated 2.3.2017 for Rs.3408/-, booking ID number HTLH3Y2B77 dated 3.3.2017 for Rs.1780/- and booking ID number HTL3T5M0CV dated 3.3.27017 for Rs.1880/- for four days i.e. 10.3.2017, 11.3.2017, 12.3.2017 and 13.3.2017. It is further averred that prior to booking of the hotel, the complainant made a call at the phone number of the hotel and enquired about the food menu and its price. It is further averred that the hotel booking of the complainant was during the period of holy festival when there is huge gathering in Vrindavan and there is waiting for one to two hours at least in the hotels for taking the food. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the complainant and his family members requested the hotel staff for supply of food, but they showed their inability to provide the same on the pretext that the son of their hotel cook is ill and the hotel cook will come on the next day and food will be provided to the complainant and his family members accordingly. Further grievance of the complainant is that there was no bathroom sitter in the bathroom regarding which the complainant lodged the complaint, but of no avail, as such the complainant suffered great mental tension and harassment. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 5.4.2017 calling them to refund the amount of Rs.11,457/- or to remove the three star from the name of the hotel. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.11,457/- paid by the complainant or to remove three star against the name of the above said hotel and further to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the OP number 1 is an online travel agent and service provider and confirms the hotel bookings to the complainant as per his request and that the complainant is barred to file the complaint under the law as it has not been filed with proper jurisdiction as per section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, it is stated that the complainant got booked the hotel rooms after his full satisfaction. The allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. It is stated that the legal notice sent by the complainant was duly replied. Lastly, the Op has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
3. In reply filed by OP number 2, it is stated that the complainant availed the services of the OP, but it is stated that the room rent does not include breakfast, lunch and dinner etc. It is stated that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. Further it is stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 copies of the documents and affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 to Ex.OP2/12 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
5. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties as well as documentary evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 2 through OP number 1 by getting booked two hotel rooms for 10.3.2017, 11.3.2017, 12.3.2017 and 13.3.2017 to stay in the hotel of OP number 2 at Varindaban. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 2 did not provide the food on demand as there was great rush and further the Op number 2 told the complainant that the son of the hotel cook was ill as such they are unable to provide the food. On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 2 is that though the complainant got booked the rooms, but the same were not including any breakfast, lunch and dinner. So, the question of any deficiency in service to provide the food does not arise at all on the part of the OP number 2. Another grievance of the complainant as stated in the complaint is that there was no sitter in the bathroom, but a bare perusal of it reveals that there is no cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that there was lack of sitter in the bathroom. Further the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that there was no cook available during the visit of the complainant and his family members and the OP number 2 did not provide food also falsifies as the OP number 2 has produced on record the copies of the number of bills on record as Ex.OP2/1 (copy of bills serial number 3501 to 3700) showing that there was a heavy sale of the food from the dates i.e. 5.3.2017 to 15.3.2017 and the question of denial of the food to the complainant does not arise at all. Moreover, it is worth mentioning here that there was no commitment by the OP number 2 that it will provide the food to the complainant with the booked rooms nor there is any documentary evidence produced on the record by the complainant that the OP number 2 will provide the food as contended by the learned counsel for the complainant. In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has failed to prove his case of any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
7. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and as such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
October 3, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
