Haryana

Ambala

CC/32/2022

Sanjay Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Chuni Lal Sharma

10 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	32 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	01.02.2022
Date of decision	:	10.12.2024

 Sanjay Kumar Sharma, aged about 51 Yrs, s/o Sh. M.L.Sharma, R/o J.D.Farm, Kalarheri (28), Ambala. 

……. Complainant

Vs.

1. Make my trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. 19th Floor, Epitome Building no.5, DLF, Cyber City DLF, Phase-III, Gurugram (Haryana)-122002 through its Manager/Incharge.
2. Island and Blue Beach No.5, Vijaynagar beach Havelock Island, Andaman and Nicobar, Islands-744103, through its Manager/Incharge.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                       Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for the Complainant.

                      Shri Gaurav Rajpoot, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1

                   OP No.2 already ex parte.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay the amount of Rs.4238/- and Rs.4500/- totaling Rs.8738/- alongwith interest @24% p.a.
2. To pay Rs.3,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/-, as litigation expenses.
4. Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is residing at Ambala with his family and in order to celebrate his 25^th Marriage Anniversary, planned a trip to an Island alongwith his wife namely-Alka Sharma. Complainant decided to visit Andaman Nicobar Island through Air and asked his son, Abhinav Sharma for booking of hotel i.e Island and Blue Beach No.5, Vijaynagar beach Havelock Island, Andaman and Nicobar, at the Island and accordingly he contacted the OP No.1 and its manager disclosed that it is running the business of online booking and is on the portal of OP No.2 and asked the son of the complainant to pay amount of Rs.4,238/- as booking charges for the hotel of the OP No.2 and accordingly the payment of booking was released through UPI by Abhinav Sharma and the OP No.1 confirmed the online booking of hotel/OP No.2 and conveyed to Mr. Abhinav Sharma through invoice/mall on 29.11.2021 at 6.27 PM. On 29.11.2021, complainant alongwith his wife reached Andaman Nicobar by Air, to celebrate his 25^th marriage anniversary and went to the hotel of OP No.2 and enquired about the booking done by the OP No.1.  OP No.2 disclosed through mail on 29.11.2021 that we are not associated with any of the online booking of the portal and refused to provide hotel facilities. Complainant requested the OP No.2 to provide the hotel facility to the complainant on which the OP No.2 asked him for fresh booking and demanded Rs.4500/-, as booking fee, which was paid by the complainant in cash. Due to the said act of the OPs, complainant and his wife had suffered a lot of inconvenience and gone through mental agony and harassment, hence the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to no cause of action and no territorial jurisdiction etc.   On merits, it has been stated that the answering OP is merely a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets/hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers. Upon the request received from the complainant for booking, answering OP has forwarded the confirmed booking to the complainant. After the issuance of the concerned bookings, the answering OP is discharged from all its duties and obligations qua the concerned booking and the service provider- consumer relation ends. Further, at the time of making the concerned bookings, the complainant duly agreed to the user agreement of the OP wherein it was explicitly stated that the answering OP shall not be held liable for any deficiency in services on the part of the concerned hotel i.e Island  & Blue Beach Havelock, OP No.2 end service provider. According to the User Agreement, the liability for any aspects of the standards of services provided by the concerned Airlines, is not attributable to the Opposite Party. The relevant portion of the User Agreement has been reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity of this Hon'ble Commission:

“Unless MMT explicitly acts as a reseller in certain scenarios, MMT always acts as a facilitator by connecting the User with the respective service providers like airlines, hotels, restaurants, bus operators etc. (collectively referred "Service Providers"). MMT's liability is limited to providing the User with a confirmed booking as selected by the User.

 

Any issues or concerns faced by the User at the time of availing any such services shall be the sole responsibility of the Service Provider. MMI will have no liability with respect to the acts, omissions, errors, representations, warranties, breaches or negligence on part of any Service Provider.

 

Unless explicitly committed by MMT as a part of any product or service:

 

MMT assumes no liability for the standard of services as provided by the respective Service Providers.

 

MMT provides no guarantee with regard to their quality or fitness as represented.

 

MMT doesn't guarantee the availability of any services as listed by a Service Provider.

 

By making a booking, User understands MMT merely provides a technology platform for booking of services and products and the ultimate liability rests on the respective Service Provider and not MMT. Thus the ultimate contract of service is between User and Service Provider.

 

User further understands that the information displayed on the Website with respect to any service is displayed as furnished by the Service Provider. MMT, therefore cannot be held liable in case if the information provided by the Service Provider is found to be inaccurate, inadequate or obsolete or in contravention of any laws, rules, regulations or directions in force."

 

          Further, the User Agreement of the answering Opposite Party also explicitly states that no liability for the denial of check-in on the end of the concerned Hotel can be attributed to the answering Opposite Party. The relevant excerpt from the Terms of Service of the User Agreement has been reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity of this Hon'ble Commission:

 

"The hotel booking voucher which MMT issues to a User is solely based on the information provided or updated by the hotel regarding the inventory availability. In circumstances can MMT be held liable for failure on part of a hotel to accommodate the User with a confirmed booking, the standard of service or any insufficiency in the services, or any other service-related issues at the hotel. The liability of MMT in case of denial of check-in by a hotel for any reason what- so-ever including over-booking, system or technical errors, or unavailability of rooms etc., will be limited to either providing a similar alternate accommodation at the discretion of MMT (subject to availability at that time), or refunding the booking amount (to the extent paid) to the User. Any other service-related issues should be directly resolved by the User with the hotel.

 

Hotels reserves the sole right of admission and MMT has no say whatsoever in admission or denial for admission by the hotel. Unmarried or unrelated couples may not be allowed to check-in by some hotels as per their policies. Similarly, accommodation may be denied to guests posing as a couple if suitable proof of identification is not presented at the time check-in. Some hotels may also not allow local residents to check-in as guests. MMT will not be responsible for any check-in denied by the hotel due to the aforesaid reasons or any other reason not under the control of MMT. No refund would be applicable in case the hotel denies check-in under such circumstances."

4. It is further stated that the complainant has claimed that when he reached the premises of the OP No.2, he was denied check-in and it provided him an email. It is further stated that at no instance it can be imagined that when the complainant had reached the concerned Hotel then its representatives informed him about cancellation of association, via email. The complainant has falsely tried to manifest against the answering OP. Complainant has claimed that the OP No.2 had sent him an Email dated 29.11.2021 but on perusal it is clear that the concerned email dated 29.11.2021, has been sent by the complainant and not by the OP No.2 as such, the same cannot be construed as a corroboration that the OP No.2 has ended its association with the answering OP at the time of booking of the concerned Hotel. It is further stated that the corresponding claim is being forwarded only to prejudice the minds of this Hon’ble Commission, without attaching any cogent piece of evidence. Furthermore, the complainant has miserably failed to attach a valid Invoice as issued by the OP No.2 to corroborate the fact that they had booked another room in the same Hotel.  It is further stated that the answering OP did not allure the complainant and he himself chose the online platform of the answering OP and further chose the OP NO.2 as the preferred hotel for the concerned stay. It is further stated that the answering OP is willing to process the Complete Refund amounting to Rs.4,238/-, at the instance of the present complaint being withdrawn qua the answering OP and it being relieved of all its liabilities.  Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
5.           Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.04.2022.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainants as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of S.Sreesh, Assistant Manager (Legal) & Authorized Representative of OP No.1 Company-MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
7.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.1 and have carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by OP No.1.
8.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant and his wife has suffered a lot, as they failed to get hotel for their stay on their 25^th anniversary only on the ground that OP No.1 had booked a hotel with OP No.2, on receipt of amount of Rs.4238/- despite the fact that OP No.1 was not having any association with online booking portal with OP No.2. He further submitted that thereafter, the complainant and his wife had to incur extra amount of Rs.4500/- for separate booking of a room at Andaman and they were also caused a lot of mental agony, harassment and financial loss. He further submitted that neither the amounts paid by the complainant, in the aforesaid manner has been refunded by OP No.1 nor any compensation for mental agony and harassment has been paid, despite the fact that number of request were made by the complainant though his son-Abhinav Sharma.
9.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 submitted that a confirmed room ticket was provided to the complainant and his wife, qua the hotel of OP No.2. He further submitted that if OP No.2 did not provide room to the complainant and his wife, then OP No.1 cannot be held responsible for the same. He further submitted that OP No.1, as a good will gesture, is still ready to refund the amount of Rs.4238/- received from the complainant, but it is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.4500/-, as sought for by the complainant as room charges because no document has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that he had paid the said amount to the hotel concerned.  
10.           The first question that falls for consideration is, as to whether, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint? It may be stated here that from the perusal of Aadhar Card Annexure C-7, it is evident that the complainant is the resident of Ambala, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission as such, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint and therefore, objection taken by the OP No.1 in this regard is rejected.
11.           Now coming to the merits of this case, this complaint involves a dispute between the complainant and OP No.1 and OP No.2, concerning a hotel room booking made by the complainant and his wife for their stay at OP No.2’s hotel on 29.11.2021. The complainant seeks compensation for the inconvenience caused when OP No.2 denied them a room, despite having made the booking through OP No.1. The complainant further claims that he had to pay an additional amount of Rs.4500/- to OP No.2 to secure accommodation. OP No.1, on the other hand, has admitted the receipt of Rs. 4238/- from the complainant, but has failed to substantiate the reasons behind the denial of the room by OP No.2.
12.           Perusal of payment receipt Annexure C-3, reveals that the complainant’s booking was for a stay at OP No.2’s hotel on 29.11.2021, with a check-out date of 30.11.2021. The plea of the complainant is that when he and his wife arrived at OP No.2’s hotel they were denied the booked room on the ground that OP No.2 had no record of the booking and, therefore, could not accommodate the complainant. To corroborate this fact the complainant has placed on record an email dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure C-6), sent by OP No.2 to the complainant’s son and copied to OP No.1. In this email, OP No.2 clearly stated that they were not associated with any online booking portals of OP No.1. The complainant’s son then sent further emails (Annexure C-6), informing OP No.1 about the denial of the room and reiterating the claim that OP No.2 was no longer associated with OP No.1's online booking portals. However, despite these emails, OP No.1 failed to respond or provide any explanation. The OP No.1 failed to ensure that the booking information was properly transmitted to OP No.2. This resulted in the complainant and his wife being denied their reserved room and left in an embarrassing and uncomfortable situation. Moreover, in its written version, OP No.1 admitted that it is willing to refund the amount of Rs.4238/- to the complainant. This admission itself substantiates the claim of deficiency in service, as it implicitly acknowledges that the complainant did not receive the services he had paid for. Failure of OP No.1 to explain how the amount was received and how a confirmed booking could be made for a hotel that was no longer associated with OP No.1's portals highlights a significant lapse in their operations and their failure to meet consumer expectations.
13.           The complainant and his wife were left in a dire situation, having booked a room in good faith to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary, only to be denied access to the room on the ground that the booking made through OP No.1 was not valid. This caused immense distress and ruined the special occasion for the complainant and his wife. It is evident that OP No.1’s failure to provide the service as promised is a clear case of deficiency in providing service.
14.           Complainant has pleaded that he was forced to pay an additional Rs.4500/- to OP No.2 for fresh booking of a room, thus he is entitled to get refund of the said amount. On the other hand, the OP No.1 has contended that there is no proof regarding payment of Rs.4500/-, to the OP No.2, for fresh booking of the room, thus, complainant is not entitled to get the said amount. It may be stated here that no document has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that he has paid an amount of Rs.4500/-, to the OP No.2, for the booking of the room. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the contention of the complainant that he had paid an amount of Rs.4500/-, as room booking charges to the OP No.2 is not tenable, hence, not entitled to get the said amount of Rs.4,500/-. 
15.           Although OP No.1 has admitted to being willing to refund the booking amount of Rs.4238/-. However, this admission does not absolve OP No.1 of its responsibility for the inconvenience caused to the c  omplainant for not getting the room in the hotel of OP No.2. The complainant is thus not only entitled to refund of the Rs. 4238/-, but also entitled to compensation for the distress, inconvenience, and financial loss incurred due to the actions of OP No.1 alongwith litigation expenses.
16.           As for OP No.2, the complainant’s grievance does not appear to be rooted in any fault or deficiency on its part. The denial of the room was based on the fact that OP No.1 did not transmit the booking details to OP No.2, and OP No.2 was not associated with OP No.1's online booking portals at the time. The complainant has failed to provide any evidence showing that OP No.2 was responsible for the failure to honor the booking or any other deficiency in their services. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that OP No.2 was at fault. Therefore, the complaint against OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed.
17.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and allow the same against OP No.1 and direct it, in the following manner:-
    1. To refund the amount of Rs.4238/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% p.a. w.e.f 26.11.2021, i.e the date of payment of the amount to OP No.1, till its realization.
    2. To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.1,500/- as litigation expenses. 

The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP No.1 shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 10.12.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President