Orissa

Cuttak

CC/211/2023

Kalinga Keshari Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trip India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

U K Mohapatra & associates

16 Apr 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.211/2023

 

1.       Kalinga Keshari Mohapatra,

S/o: Late Susil Kumar Mohapatra,

At:Balikuda,P.O:Gopalpur,

P.S:CuttackSadar,Dist:Cuttack.          

 

2.        Jagannath Kamila,

S/o: Baidhar Kamila,

Vill:Khondasahi,P.O:Chakobanahapur,

P.S:Soro,Dist:Balasore.

At present:At/PO:Arunodaya Market,

P.S:Badambadi,Dist:Cuttack.                        ... Complainants.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd.,

DLF Building No.5, Tower B,

DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-2,

Sector-25, Gurugram,Haryana-122002,India,

Through its authorised signatory/Proprietor.

 

2.        Super OYO Townhouse 1050 Centre Point in

Near Esplanade Metro Station,8/2, Esplanade Row East,

Beside K C Das Sweet Esplanade

Post Office,Kolkata,through its owner of the hotel.                               … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    22.06.2023

Date of Order:  16.04.2024

 

For the complainants:       Mr. U.K.Mohapatra,Adv& Associates.

For the O.PNo.1        :       Mr. S.Biswal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2        :                    None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

 

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that on 10.5.2023 at 8.50 A.M the complainants had checked-in to the Hotel of O.P no.2 which is at Kolkata.  On 11.5.2023 morning at 8.35 A.Mwhen the complainants went to have the complementary breakfast in the said hotel of O.P no.2., they were denied to be served the complimentary breakfast even though they had booked for the same through O.P no.1.  It is for the said reason, the complainants have come up with their case alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps and has thus demanded exemplary compensation alongwith the cost of their litigation from the O.Ps.

          Together with the complaint petition, the complainants have annexed copies of several documents in order to prove their case.

2.       Out of the two O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case, O.P no.2 has been set exparte vide order dt.21.9.2023.  However, O.P no.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein it is urged that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is false, malicious, incorrect and is filed with a malafide intention and is thus liable to be dismissed.  O.P No.1 has also questioned the jurisdiction of this Commission.  It is admitted by O.P no.1 that the complainants had booked a classic room for their stay including complimentary breakfast at the hotel of O.P no.2 which is at Kolkata and they had booked the same for one night i.e., on 10.5.2023 with booking ID No.NH73150260842440.  The complainants had paid a sum of Rs.2526/- for the same.  O.P no.1 has stated that O.P no.2 had denied breakfast to the complainants even though the booking voucher was issued to the complainants showing breakfast included in their booking.  O.P No.1 through it’s written version has mentioned that it’s role in the said situation is limited and as it seems that O.P no.1 has shifted the responsibility and had thrown the same upon O.P no.2 saying that O.P no.1 himself is only a facilitator or intermediary and has limited role in the alleged incident.  Accordingly, it is prayed by O.P no.1 to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary cost or to pass any other appropriate order as deemed fit and proper.

          O.P no.1 has filed copies of several documents in order to support it’s stand.

          O.P no.1 has also filed evidence affidavit through one Puneet Chowla, working as Deputy Manager (Legal) in it’s organisation.  The evidence affidavit of the said Puneet Chowla when perused it is noticed to be a reiteration of the contents as made in the written version of O.P No.1.

          The complainant Jagannath Kamila has also filed their evidence affidavit wherein he has also reiterated the averments as made by them in their complaint petition.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P No.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainantsare entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them?

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being a pertinent issue, is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version, the written notes of submissions filed by the complainant & O.P No.1, evidence filed on behalf of complainants & O.P no.1 as well as the documents available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly the complainants Kalinga Keshari Mohapatra and Jagannath Kamila had bookedone room for themselves in the hotel of O.P no.2 through O.P no.1 for 10.5.2023 night.  On 11.5.2023 at 8.35 A.Mwhen the complainants went to avail  complimentary breakfast, O.P no.2 had denied to serve the said complimentary breakfast to them for which they had faced trouble.  On perusal of Annexure-1, it goes to show that infact one room was booked for one night stay on 10.5.23 and the check-out time was by 11 A.M. on 11.5.2023.  It was booked for two persons and the booking also included breakfast therein.  The amount paid for the said booking was of Rs.2526/-.  The complainants through their complaint petition have averred that they were denied complimentary breakfast in the morning of 11.5.23 even though they had booked for the same.  O.P no.2 has not contested this case and thus has been set exparte on 21.9.2023.  O.P no.1 has tried to escape from the liability by throwing the burden upon O.P no.2 and trying to convince that it being a facilitator/mediator has a limited role in the alleged situation.  Such plea as taken by O.P no.1 do not suffice.  It is because, being the facilitator and since when the complainants had booked one room at Kolkata in the hotel of O.P no.2, through O.P no.1, it is the bounden duty of O.P no.1 to ascertain the comforts of the complainants there since because it has accepted their booking and the complainants had relied upon the services of O.P no.1 rather than of O.P no.2.  Thus, the effort of wriggling out of the situation by O.P no.1 clearly indicates the motive of O.P no.2 which is rather malafide in nature.  When Annexure-1 clearly reflects about the inclusive of breakfast alongwith the hotel room booking for the complainants, denial to serve them breakfast in the morning of 11.5.23 by O.P no.2 clearly shows the deficiency in the services of O.P no.2 and O.P no.1 as well.  The jurisdiction of this Commission though questioned by the O.P No.1, the C.P.Act,2019 provides ample jurisdiction to this Commission since when it is noticed that complainant no.1 Kalinga Keshari Mohapatra is a resident of Cuttack district.  Accordingly, this Commission finds without hesitation that this pertinent issue goes in favour of the complainants.

Issues no.Ii&iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainants is definitely maintainable and they are entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them.

                                              ORDER

This case is allowed on contest against the O.P no.1 &exparte against O.P no.2 who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The, O.Ps are thus directed to refund the cost of the hotel room booking i.e., Rs.2526/- to the complainants with immediate effect.  They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainants alongwith a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of their litigation. This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 16^th day of April,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                         

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                           President

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member