Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1084/2019

Pritpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trip - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder Singh Randhawa Adv.

16 Jun 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1084 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	01.11.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	16.06.2021

 

 

 

 

1]  Pritpal Singh s/o Sh.Ishar Singh, R/o H.No.404, Phase-3A, SAS Nagar, Mohali

2]  Devinder Kaur w/o Sh.Pritpal Singh, R/o H.No.404, Phase-3A, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

             …..Complainants

 

Versus

1]  Make My Trip, 18^th Floor, Tower-B, Building No.5, Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 through its Senior Business Manager.

2]  Make My Trip, SCO No.169-170, 1^st Floor, Near Sindhi Sweets, Sector 8, Chandigarh 160018 through its Business Manager

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.J.S.Randhawa, Adv. for complainant.

  Sh.Gaurav Rana, Adv. for OPs

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainants booked a Holiday Trip to Nepal through OP No.1, whereby OP No.1 promised to provide 4-Star facilities to the complainants during their stay at Hotels at Kathmandu and Pokhara in Nepal.  The schedule for the said trip was from 8^th June to 15^th June, 2019 and for that the OP No.1 charged an amount of Rs.66,661/- for two persons. 

         It is stated that the experience of the complainants about the trip booked through OP No.1 was very pathetic.  It is submitted that while arriving at Kathmandu on 8.6.2019, the car provided to the complainants was not of Sedan Standard, as mentioned in the Brochure (Ann.C-1); Dahlia Boutique Hotel at Pokhara (Nepal) provided by OPs was not of 4-Star Category and more so, the lift in the said Hotel was out of order, causing further inconvenience to the complainants.  It is also submitted there was no swimming pool facility at the said Hotel as mentioned in the Brochure by the OPs and when this matter was reported to the executive of the said Hotel, she also sent an email in this regard to the OPs on 10.6.2019 (Ann.C-5 & C-6).  It is further submitted that even the food served at the said Hotel at Pokhara, its preparation, the ambience of the Dinning Hall, was not as per the standard of 4-Star Hotel (Ann.C-7 to C-9).  It is pleaded that when these things as well as the deficiency in rendering proper service has been highlighted to the Ops, they offered an amount of Rs.3000/- in cash by sending email dated 13.8.2019 (Ann.C-10), which was not accepted by the complainants.  Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to the OPs on 24.9.2019, which was replied by the OPs on 1.10.2019 seeking some information, which has been provided, but despite that no response has been received from the side of the OPs (Ann.C-11 to C-13).  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case about booking and travel of the complainants undertaken through them, stated that OPs being only the facilitator between the concerned service provider and intended traveller, are not responsible or liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the Hotel or any service provider, as the same is the sole prerogative of the Hotelier or the service provider.  It is stated that once the confirmed bookings are shared with customer, the answering OPs are discharged from its obligations and duties qua the said booking.  It is also stated that the OPs have shared a detailed itinerary with the complainants at the time of booking of the package, which complainants must have gone through before finalizing the package and did not raise any issue.  It is pleaded that so far as the star rating of concerned Hotel i.e. Dahlia Boutique Hotel, Pokhara, Nepal or other hotels are concerned, till date there is no set mechanism for rating the Hotels or Resorts and that the rating is provided by the Hotelier and it also depends upon the reviews or recommendations of the customers.

         It is submitted that the OP as a gesture of goodwill, has already offered the compensation to the complainants for the alleged substandard service provided by the Hotel, by issuing a fine-dinning voucher amounting to Rs.2000/-.  Further, the complainants when approached the OPs being aggrieved by the quality of the vehicle for transport services duly provided the complainant with a substitute vehicle and apart from this, the OPs as a goodwill also offered a refund of Rs.3000/- to the complainants, which was rejected by them.  It is also submitted that no liability or deficiency in service can be attributed to the OPs and the concerned Hotel i.e. Dahlia Boutique Hotel, Pokhara and the concerned Transport Service Provider are only liable to compensate the complainant.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OPs and have gone through the entire record as well as written arguments of both parties.

 

5]       There is no denial to the fact that the complainants have booked holiday tour to Nepal with OP Company scheduled for 8.6.2019 to 15.6.2019 and charged an amount of Rs.66,661/-.  By way of present complaint, the complainants raised certain issues exposing discrepancies faced in the committed services being provided by the OP Company.  The perusal of the record reveals that the complainants have raised issue for not providing Sedan standard car as per the commitment; also the Hotel provided at Pokhara, Nepal, was not of committed category and the services there were not upto mark as the lift was out of order which caused inconvenience to the complainants being allotted room on First Floor.  To this issue, when the complainants approached the OP Company vide email dated 11.6.2019 (Ann.C-2).  The representative of OP Company in reply submitted their apology for the inconvenience vide email Ann.C-3.  For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract of said reply of OP Company is reproduced as under:-

“Thank you for notifying us your query please accept our sincere apologies for the inconvenience your may have experience in regard to your trip.”

 

6]       Another complaint regarding the non-availability of swimming pool was also made with OP Company, which very well was in the brochure list of OP Company being committed service.  In response to the matter raised with the Hotel at Pokhra, Nepal, the Executive Marketing & Sales of that Hotel sent an email to the OP Company on 10.6.2019 (Ann.C-5) with the following wording:- 

“We are facing a great issue with this swimming pool thing shown in the front page of MMT & which is not mentioned in our extranet. This is the second time for the same issue & guest is really angry because of the same.”

 

7]       In response to the above email, the representative of OP Company responded vide email dated 10.6.2019 (Ann.C-6), the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-

“The same has been noted.  I will forward the same to the team concerned to remove the icon from Goibibo as on MMT the same is not shown.”

        

8]       From the emails, as recorded above, it is very well makes out that the OP Company is habitual to project false commitments or allurements having clear knowledge  & intention not to fulfill the same in toto. Even at the first glance, the deficiency in service on the part of OP Company is reflected. 

 

9]       But, before adjudging, we prefer to discuss the defence put forth by the OP Company.  The OPs broadly relied upon the terms & conditions agreed upon between the parties, the relevant provision of which, for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under:-

 

"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 to as "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. MMT 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 Provider
• 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.

 

10]      The thorough perusal of the above terms & conditions, revels that the OP Company vide those terms & conditions tried to aloof itself from the burden of any of the liability, which may arise due to deficient services.  MMT (Make My Trip)/OP Company vide terms & conditions have claimed itself to be the facilitator only between service provider and traveller, which in our considered opinion is not upright as the complainants have availed the services of OP Company after having gone through the advertisement floated by OP Company claiming to provide services as mentioned therein.  There is no evidence produced by OP Company showing that the complainants had any direct contact with the persons, hotel or other facilities being provided by the OPs.  It is very well admitted that the complainants have obtained the tour package after going through the details made available by the OPs on their website and paid an amount of Rs.66,661/- to OPs with certain agreed assurances, which are also in the detailed itinerary provided at the time of booking the package with OP (Ann.C-1). 

 

11]      The thorough perusal of the reply filed by the OPs transpires that there is whispering in the reply filed by OPs that the complainants were not provided the services upto mark, but vide reply they shifted their burden of liability by saying it to be the liability of the concerned service provider on account of deficient services i.e. trnsporter or the Hotel service provider.

 

12]      Evident that the OPs offered to the complainants compensation for the alleged substandard service provided by the Hotel, by issuing a fine-dining voucher amounting to Rs.2,000/-. Further, the Complainants, when approached the OP Company being aggrieved by the quality of the vehicle for transport services duly provided to the Complainants with a substitute vehicle. In addition to the above said compensation, the OPs also offered goodwill refund to the complainants to the tune of Rs.3000/-, which was rejected by them. 

 

13]      Reiterated that the OPs have tried to shun off their responsibility claiming that any discrepancies in services, occurred at the level of alleged service provider i.e. Transport Company, Hotel authorities etc.  We are not convinced with the defence put forth by the OP Company.  The OPs have failed to justify the inconvenience suffered by the complainants due to the deficient services rendered by the OP Company.  In our considered opinion, the OP Company has charged the complainants for the tour package which cogently include hassle free tour being based on the assured facilities made available in the tour package, which in actual they failed to provide in toto.

 

14]      Further, it is highlighted that the OPs had committed Four Star Hotel facility in the tour package of the complainants, but in reply they come out with the plea that there are no such criteria about the rating of the Hotel. It is stated by the OPs in their reply as under:-

“The star ratings given to the Hotels mentioned on the web portal of the OP are on the basis of the two-fold mechanism. The first of which is the rating is provided by the hotelier, with regard to its hotel before listing the same on our portal.

 

Secondly, the reviews or ratings provided by the customers is also taken into consideration. In the present case, the Complainants are aggrieved by the quality of services provided by the concerned Hotel i.e. Dahlia Boutique Hotel, Pokhara situated at Nepal, where, till date there is not set mechanism for rating the Hotels or resorts. Also, there is no statutory body that gives such rating to the hotels and resorts. The OP in order to assist its customers. evolved a twofold mechanism to provide rating to its platform i.e. the rating provided by the hotelier at the time of listing of hotel and the rating given to the hotel from its customers. In simple terms, it can be explained as the automated mechanism which collaborate the services and the reviews or recommendations received from customers and automatically give the rating to the Hotel. The intended traveller after going through the complete details of the Hotels and after being satisfied requests the OP to make the confirm bookings.”

 

         In view of the above reply, the OP Company has failed to prove that the Hotel provided to the complainants at Pokhra, Nepal was Four Star rated.  No document showing any of the mechanism adopted by the Hotel has been placed on record.  They instead gave reply that there is no statutory body that gives such rating to the hotels and resorts.

 

15]      From Ann.C-5, it transpires that OP Company is not much bothered about the facilities being available in the hotel booked under the package, rather they are committing unfair trade practice by projecting the availability of the facilities, which do not exist in actual.  It seems that when any discrepancy is noticed in the services, they by taking shelter under the so called terms & conditions try to shift their burden and also offer compensation in the shape of peanuts.  We feel that it has not been considered or bothered that what harassment the customers/consumers face when they are not being provided all the services for which they have paid under the package.  There is no breakup given by the OP Company for the services provided under the package.  Once they commit to provide certain amenities under the package, they must adhere to the same. 

         Missing of one or two facilities may not affect the OP Company, but certainly it effects other party mentally as well as financially.  A person pays certain amount under the package having influenced by the facilities to be provided under the package at fixed amount.  Such allurement should not be made for the sake of enticing the consumers or public at large. 

 

16]      In view of the above discussion, it is clearly established that the OP Company failed to render proper services to the complainants and it also shows the malpractices adopted by OP Company in projecting numerous facilities to be provided, which in actual are not even mentioned in their extranet with concerned Hotel etc. This malpractices are nonetheless the unfair trade practice resorted to by the OP Company, which needs to be curbed.  In our considered opinion, this complaint has also exposed the sham reality about the functioning of the OP Company.

          

17]      Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case, as well as discussion made in preceding paragaraphs, the deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of Opposite Parties coupled with unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs have been established, which certainly has caused harassment to the complainants.  Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against OPs with a direction to compensate the complainants by paying an amount of Rs.20,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.10000/-. The OPs are also penalized with cost of Rs.One Lakh for the unfair trade practice resorted to by them and the said amount is directed to be deposited by OPs in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.

          This order shall be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- to complainants apart from the above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary (SCDRC), U.T. Chandigarh, for necessary action.

Announced

16^th June, 2021                                                                                                                                                                       sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER