D.O.F:01/09/15

D.O.O:13/12/16

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                         CC.NOs.228/15

                                 Dated this, the 13 th     day of December  2016

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                     : PRESIDENT

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER

1.Shinu.T, Chaitanyam, Podolivayal,

Payyanur, Kannur Dt., Kerala 670307.

2.Aneesh.A, Aerath House, Thimiri Po,                               : Complainants

 Cheruvathur Via,Kasaragod. 671313.

Make My Trip India(Pvt)Ltd, Tower A, SP Infocity 243,

Udyog Vihar, Phase1, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.              : Opposite party

                                                                                              ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                     : PRESIDENT

  The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

       That the 1st complainant booked a room for 2^nd  complainant and  family at  Hotel Royal Avenue, Madiwala Bangalore for boarding on 16/8/15 through opposite party.  After making payment by the complainant  got confirmation message from ‘make my trip that the booking is confirmed and on 16/8/2015 at 9.p.m 2^nd complainant and family reached the hotel for check-in. But the hotel manager rejected the booking confirmation receipt  send by opposite party  saying that there was no such booking in the hotel  held by  make my trip and  the complainant contacted opposite parties customer care  but in vain.  In that night the 2^nd complainant  and his family  struggled a lot  mentally disappointed  and stayed another hotel after a long search. The very next day the 1st complainant called the customer care and lodged a complaint but till date no  favorable reply from their part.  Hence this complaint alleging  deficiency in service  against opposite party.

    On  receipt of notice from this Forum opposite party entered in appearance through counsel and filed version.  In the version opposite party denied all he allegations made against them in the complaint.  It is  submitted that the opposite party is a reputed and highly acclaimed  Tour and Travel company having presence in all major parts of India and abroad and acts facilitator for booking of air tickets , bus tickets, hotels organizing National and international tours.  The customers making the booking online for their travel have to accept the terms and conditions of user agreement at the time  of  booking.  It is further submitted that the complainant booked hotel Royal Avenue, Bangalore  for stay on 16/8/15 for himself and his  wife and paid Rs.1170/- and the opposite party issued confirmed hotel vouchers and discharged its liability and on reaching the  hotel Royal Avenue on 16/8/15 the complainant was denied check in for reason best known to the hotel and for the proper adjudication of the complaint, hotel Royal Avenue is a  necessary party and it is further stated that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  There is no damage caused to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

  The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1  the 2^nd complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 documents .  Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence Ext.B1 and B2 marked on their side.

    On going through the entire facts of the case the following issues raised for consideration.

1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint or not?

2.  Is there any deficiency in service against opposite party

3. If so what is the relief?

Issue No.1:   The first issue is with regard to the  territorial jurisdiction of the Forum.  The contention taken by the opposite party in the version is that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since the jurisdiction clause contained the user agreement agreed between the complainant/user and the opposite parthy at the time of booking the hotels the jurisdiction is restricted to  courts/Forums in NCR of Delhi.  Here the opposite party produced  the  so called copy of  user agreement and the same is marked as Ext.B2 .  It is not a bilateral agreement.  It is a unilateral one.  The opposite party themselves  declared that  the jurisdiction in  NCR of Delhi.  Complainant  is not  binding on that agreement.  Moreover the booking and he payment  took place at Kasaragod District  within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Here this Forum has ample power to entertain this complaint and the 1st issue is answered accordingly.

  Issue No.2:   The specific case of the complainant is that he was denied check in on 16/8/15 at 9.p.m by Hotel Royal Avenue stating that there was no booking by the opposite party.  Here the opposite party admitted the booking made by the Ist complainant for 2^nd complainant and family and  on receipt  of payment and passing of confirmation slip to complainant.  Here another contention taken by the  opposite party is that Hotel Royal Avenue is a necessary party in this case for the proper adjudication of the complaint.  Here there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Hotel Royal Avenue.  Therefore Hotel Royal Avenue is not a necessary party for the proper adjudication of the complaint.  Here the question is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of  opposite party  or not?  Here when Hotel Royal Avenue rejected the booking confirmation receipt issued by opposite party stating that there was no such booking in the hotel made by Make my Trip then 2^nd complainant contacted the opposite party’s customer care and the customer care persons spoke with the complainants and hotel manager  through the complainant’s phone and the manager rejected the booking  thus the customer care persons cut the  call without giving any reply or  solutions to the complainants.  Here it is the duty of the opposite party or their customer care centre to make alternative arrangements to the complainant.  If the hotel is not ready to accommodate the customers of opposite party it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to make necessary  alternative arrangements.  Here the  response of the opposite party is not justifiable.  Here we can imagine the situation of the complainant   during night with his wife  in a  strange place to search another hotel.  The difficulty of the  complainant arose only because of the  act of opposite party. Denial of proper service amounts to deficiency in service.  On going through the facts of the  case we are of the opinion that the complainant suffered much due to the act of opposite party.  Therefore the opposite party is liable to compensate the complaint. 

       In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay   compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and sufferings and  Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of  the order.

Exts;

A1-copy of Hotel confirmation voucher

A2-copy of cash deduction bank statement

A3-&A4- copy of refund confirmation

B1- Copy of Board Resolution

B2-copy of user agreement

PW1-Shinu.T

Sd/                                                                           Sd/

MEMBER                                                           PRESIDENT

eva

                                                                                               /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                                   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT