Consumer Complaint No.

:

CC/30/2020

Date of Institution

:

20.1.2020

Date of Decision   

:

01/03/2023

CORAM :

PAWANJIT SINGH

PRESIDENT

SURJEET KAUR

SURESH KUMAR SARDANA         

MEMBER

MEMBER

ARGUED BY

[Pawanjit Singh]

President

Sd/-

 [Surjeet Kaur]

Member

Sd/-

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

mp

Member

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Muskan Singhal D/o Varinder Mohan Singhal, resident of House No.847, First floor, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh 160015.  

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   Holiday Tringle Travel Private Limited through its M.D. Address: Plot No.29, 3^rd & 4^th floor, Dynamic house, Maruti Industrial Complex, Sector 18, Gurugram 122015, Haryana landline 1800 123 555.

2. Noble Holiday through its Manager/proprietor 36-B, Ahinsapuri, Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajashthan 313001.

 .  … Opposite Parties

Sh. Shivam Grover, Counsel for complainant.

OP No.1 exparte.

Sh. Balvinder Sangwan, counsel for OP No.2.  

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1. Briefly stated, the complainant availed services of Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred to as OPs/OP) for his trip to Thailand. The complainant paid Rs.1.00 lakh  to OP No.2  on 8.6.2019 and the booking was confirmed on 10.6.2019. It is stated that after booking the OPs again demanded Rs.6000/- on the ground that the room rates have increased. It is alleged that the initial package was of Rs.56,200 for the same sequence of rooms, Thereafter the OP No.2 charged additional Rs.4500/- to change its sequence and thereafter again charged Rs.1500 to change it back. Thus, the Op No.2 charged Rs.6000/- extra from the complainant.  After payment the Hotel voucher were issued on 13.6.2019. Although the vouchers were confirmed and as per agreement the complainant were to be accommodated in clay room on 22.6.2019 but on the voucher for the room dated 22.6.2019 under the column room information it was provided that the same will run of house, meaning thereby any room in which the hotel can accommodate the complainant at the time of check in is to be provided.   When the complainant landed in Thailand one Ms. Shivani employee of OP No.2 contacted the complainant and fabricated a story that the Hotel Keemala at the very last moment changed their policy according to which not more than 2 people can stay in a room and accordingly Hotelier has cancelled our booking for 22.6.2019. On verification the complainant was informed that it has always been hotel policy to not to accommodate more than two guests in clay room. OP No.2 were  very well aware of the said policy and that was the very reason that ‘clay room’ was not specifically mentioned in the complainant’s booking for 22.6.2019. Despite repeated requests cancellation letter of Hotel Keemala was not shared with the complainant for obvious reason of concealing the fraud committed by the agencies. Even otherwise voucher for 22.6.2019 was not specifically for clay room but for ‘run of house’ i.e. any room available could have been provided by the hotel, thus, the reason given by OP No.2 for cancellation cannot be true. It is alleged that OP No.2 left the complainant  to run from pillar to post at the very last moment in a foreign country for arrangement of a shed over the head. Ultimately the complainant was forced to book a room in hotel keemala itself on an exuberant price of approximately 64,000/-.  Thereafter the OP No.2 refunded Rs.32,000/- only but did not give any breakup as to how figure of Rs.32000/- was reached despite repeated requests by the complainant. When the grievance of the complainant not redressed by the OPs the complainant sent a legal notice but to avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The  OP No.2  in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that  the hotel in question had a policy that in one clay room more than two  person  cannot be accommodated  and the booking got approved because of a technical system error at the end of hotel, which can be ascertained from the vouchers generated by the hotel keemala that the booking was confirmed for three person. Thus, any technical error caused in the booking cannot be attributed to OP No2.  It is averred that  on the day of booking at Hotel Keemala two rooms were  provided to the complainant and her companions and that too was done without any extra charge. However as 2 rooms were not available on day 3 therefore the same could not be done. It is averred that fault for not being able to provide rooms that were booked for the complainant lies solely with the hotel in question, which has not been made party to this complaint. It is averred that when the answering OP got to know of the booking being cancelled for day 3 it gave the option of other 5 star hotels in the same area in similar price range, and agreed to pay for the same, however, the complainant flatly refused the same and asked for refund and as such OP No.2 refunded Rs.32,109/- in the account immediately. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.1 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 14.08.2020 it was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter on the application of OP No.1 the exparte order was set aside subject to cost of Rs.1000/-. However, on 18.2.2022 the NO.1 again failed to appear for filing reply and evidence, thus, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.2.2022.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that due to inactive and negligent attitude of the OPs the room already booked was canceled by the hotel in question  and he has to hire room on higher rate for Rs.64,000/- on 22.6.2019. It is admitted case of the complainant that he got refund of Rs.32,000/-  for cancellation of the room but the present complaint has been filed for refund of the remaining amount out of Rs.64,000/- paid by the complainant for the room booked by her at the later stage.  
8. In our opinion the refund of Rs.32,000/- by the OPs itself is sufficient to conclude that they were deficient in providing proper service to the complainant as promised by them that is the only reason for which they made refund of Rs.32,000/- to the complainant. However, the prayer of the complainant for refund of remaining Rs.32,000/- cannot be accepted with the formula of subtracting the refunded amount out of the amount spent as it was the complainant’s own sweet will or choice to hire an expensive room. Undoubtedly, the OPs must have charged their fee for being facilitating assistance to the complainant, thus, they were duty bound to provide hassle free hotel booking as promised by them before the tour but they utterly failed to do so.  Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, they are liable to compensate the complainant.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above
11.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-