Delhi

North

CC/245/2024

PANKAJ SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAKE MY TRIP - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.245/2024

In the matter of

Sh. Pankaj Sharma

S/o Late R.K. Sharma,

H. No. 1251, Rang Mahal,

Behind Novelty Cinema,

Delhi-110006                                              …      Complainant

Vs.

Make My Trip

(Through its Director/ M.D. or authorised person)

Executive office:

103, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1,

Gurgaon, Haryana-122016                          …     Opposite Party No.1

 

Sh. Aditya Tim Guler,

Director of Make My Trip

103, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1,

Gurgaon, Haryana-122016                          …     Opposite Party No.2

 

Sh. Deep Kalra

Group Chairman & Chief Mentor of Make My Trip,

103, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1,

Gurgaon, Haryana-122016                          …     Opposite Party No.3

 

The Nest Homestay Rooms & Kitchen

(Through its owner or other authorised person)

00 Gayatri Niwas, Zoo Road, Tallital,

Nainital, Uttarakhand                         …     Opposite Party No.4

 

02.04.2024

ORDER

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant herein has alleged deficiency of service particularly on part of M/s Make My Trip (OP-1 herein) and The Nest Homestay Rooms & Kitchen (OP-4 herein). OP-2 and OP-3 are Director and Chairman of OP-1 Company.
2. The Complainant allegedly booked an accommodation in “Deluxe room” category with OP-4 through the booking platform of OP-1 for a stay of two adults from 12.06.2022 to 15.06.2022 (three nights). The booking was done on 11.06.2022. The property in question, which is managed by OP-4, is situated at Nainital. Upon arrival, the Complainant alleges, the room so offered to him was not as per the photograph which has been advertised on the website of OP-1 by OP-4. The Complainant alleges that the photographs on the website indicated lawns, bonfire, independent balcony for each room, but the room was not as per the photographs. There was no lawn and provision for bonfire and the balcony was common area and was not independent to the room. It is also alleged that there was no provision of window or fresh air, sunlight and no lake view or even outside scenery in the room.
3. In support of his arguments, the Complainant has also annexed photographs as shown on the website and alleged actual photographs. Additionally, the Complainant has also placed on record the booking voucher, and the details of the hotel as shown on the website. We have perused all these carefully. The details of the hotel as shown on the website of OP-1 does not anywhere claim that the room has any kind of outdoor view. As a matter of fact, on the contrary, the screenshot of the website so attached by the Complainant clearly indicates that the room has “no view”. Further the alleged actual photograph as filed by the Complainant clearly shows a window in the room. This also does not support the allegation of the Complainant that there was no window in the room.
4. We also observe that the Complainant stayed in the property of OP-4 from 12.06.2022 to 15.06.2022. However there is no communication on record to suggest that the Complainant has complained with the OPs regarding alleged deficiency of service. The first and only communication of the Complainant with the OPs is in form a legal notice dated 12.10.2022. The Complainant, as stated in the complaint, is an Advocate but there is a delay of almost four months in sending the legal notice. There is no explanation that why Complainant did not contact the OPs immediately alleging deficiency of service on their part and also for seeking refund and compensation. Although contacting the OPs before filing a consumer complaint is not a necessary requirement, but in the case in hand, if there were any immediate issues with the room or location or the service, contacting the OPs is the first expected response. As the Complainant stayed in the same room for three days and did not raise any issues with the OPs, the allegations so raised in the complaint appears to be afterthought and suspicious.
5. The Complainant has also sent letters in form of a complaint to the Police Authorities on 11.07.2022 and requested for lodging of FIR against the OPs herein. But there is nothing on record to explain the delay in sending communication to the police authorities for lodging FIR. We also do not find any averment to suggest that the Complainant took steps under the law to get the FIR registered if the police authorities did not register FIR on his complaint. It appears that the Complainant has abandoned his complaint with the police authorities.
6. Hence, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the complaint is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Office is directed to supply the copy of the order to the parties in accordance with the rule. Office is also directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant, if any, after keeping copies of the same in the record. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member