BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 1^st DAY OF JANUARY 2024

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OPs to pay the entire difference amount of Rs.4,34,430/- being the excess amount paid by complainant for hotel in London along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 27.06.2022, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards hardship, mental agony and stress caused to complainant, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant stated in his complaint that he intended to undertake a business trip between 24.06.2022 to 30.06.2022. In view of that complainant utilized the OP No.1 app who is registered under provision of company’s act. On 28.02.2022 directly booked a hotel in central London, U.K. Complainant was hosting some business associates over dinner, chose five star hotel in May Fair, London and booked one bedroom suite for himself and his friends at St. James Hotel and Club, May Fair, London through Make my Trip App who is OP No.1here. Immediately after booking on 28.02.2022, complainant received confirmations from OP No.1 that the hotel booking was completed and confirmed with booking ID No.NH74129200508606 and the complainant paid full amount of Rs.2,24,320.36/- to OP No.1 towards booking by one of his city bank credit card.

3. Complainant further stated that on 24.06.2022 following the 12 hours journey by Air from Bangalore to London, Heathrow. Complainant reached St. James Hotel and Club, May Fair around 3 p.m. It was utter shock to complainant that he was informed by St. James Hotel and club, May Fair, that they had no booking reservation in the complainant’s name. Immediately he called OP No.1 hot line and was informed that his reservation at St. James Hotel and Club, May Fair was failed and that the OP No.1 would get back to the complainant shortly. But complainant did not receive any call or update from the OP No.1 even after 40 minutes of waiting and he had to leave the lobby of said hotel. Complainant called OP No.1 hot line and was told to wait for another 30 minutes, complainant’s waited for 45 minutes on the street on London and when there was no update’s from OP No.1 complainant again called OP NO.1 hot line only to inform. After waited over 2 and half hours on street of London with luggage, complainant again called back, he was informed that OP NO.1 was trying to find an alternative hotel. Since the complainant had important business dinner to attend on 24.06.2022 complainant directly checked into room at Hotel Café Royal in the hope that OP No.1 would arrange alternative hotel for him shortly and revert to him. On 25.06.2022 on about 2 p.m. complainant received a call from OP No.1 informing him that they could not honour the confirmed booking by the complainant at St. James Hotel and club, May Fair, nor could they arrange an alternative hotel for him and that the complainant would have to make his own arrangements. The executive of OP No.1 who spoke to complainant promised to re-emburse the amount spent by him another hotel and asked complainant to share invoice with OP No.1.

4. Complainant further stated that it was the time, London, hotels were charging 3 times price the complainant had booked the hotel on the OP No.1 app, 4 months in advance and which booking had been confirmed by OP No.1. It is pertinent to note that complainant could get a room in café Royal Hotel only till 27.06.2022, instead till 30.06.2022, in view of the Wimbledon Tennis Tournament which is held in last week of June every year and all hotels were fully sold out. Left with no option, complainant was forced to extend his stay at hotel Café Royal only till 27.06.2022, was further forced to pay exorbitant amount of Rs.6,58,740/- for his stay from 24.06.2022 till 27.06.2022. Complainant alleged that when the OP No.1 had confirmed his booking at St. James Hotel from 24.06.2022 to 30.06.2022 for which he had paid amount of Rs.2,24,320/-  to OP No.1 in advance, since the complainant’s business was got short for reason of non-availability of rooms, at hotel Café Royal. Complainant had to re-schedule his business meeting to into his short-end schedule and cancel others, resulting in severe embarrassment and loss to the complainant.

5. Immediately after his return to need on 28.06.2022 complainant had sent E-mail to OP No.1 including the invoice for his stay at hotel Cafe Royal and requested for entire amount of Rs.6,58,740/- paid by him to hotel Café Royal. Complainant with utter shock OP NO.1 responded to E-mail stating that it had insisted refund of original booking amount of Rs.2,24,320/- and that it was willing to refund an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant was forced to spend over Rs.4.3 lakhs in excess. In turn complainant responded immediately to OP No.1 by way of E-mail requesting for refund of entire difference amount which he paid. After several requests complainant received Rs.2,24,320/-  at 05.07.2022. OP No.1 took over 7 weeks. In spite of repeated follow ups, OP No.1 executive stating that they are working on refunding their difference amount. On 19.08.2022 received an E-mail, executive of OP No.1 that they have get before for re-imbursement of Rs.37,386/- and for the rest of the amount, the OP No.1 needs more times. Complainant asking executive of OP No.1 to take before for entire difference amount by sending E-mail on 19.08.2022. On 09.09.2022 complainant received another E-mail from OP No.1 stating that refund for full amount is still under consideration by OP No.1 and with the similar content, complainant received several E-mails from OP No.1, from 09.09.2022 till 13.11.2022.

6. Complainant alleged that OP No.1 has offered poor customer service to complainant from the time he was informed by St. James Hotel Club, May Fair that they have no booking reservation in complainant’s name. Claiming to empower the traveler with instant bookings and comprehensive joins and other range of passes and service powered the technology and round the clock customer support assured by OP No.1, deliberately left the complainant on street on London with his luggage without any alternative arrangement despite complainant having booking which was confirmed by OP No.1 for which he had paid service in advance and after they fail to refund the difference amount incurred by complainant due to the negligence of OP No.1 and alleged the deficiency of service on the part of OP and claiming for the immense hardship, loss and mental agony to complainant to compensate.

7. Aggrieved by the service of OP No.1 and the bad practice for its service caused legal notice on 19.09.2022 to OPs. OPs No.2 to 4 are directors of OP No.1 Though OP No.1 to 4 received the legal notice issued by complainant but neither complied with claims made therein nor responded to the same. Therefore complainant approached this commission for the relief he sought supra.

8. After the issuance of notice to OP No.1 to 4, counsel represented them and filed their statement of objection along with 4 documents. OPs denied the allegations made in the complaint on the ground that they are not held liable for the alleged deficiency of service. It is the case where the confirmed hotel did not honour the reservation made by the complainant using application of OP, denied accommodation. OP further stated that OP duly followed up with the hotel and get entire refund process. OP contends that the present complaint is bad in law on the ground that non-joinder of necessary party i.e. hotels in question. It also taken contention that OP is just acted as a facilitator in booking hotel rooms for consumers/complainant. Complainant booked the room himself using the app of OP. In that capacity, OP dully refunded the amount of Rs.2,24,310/- on 05.07.2022 and duly offered Rs.50,000/- as compensation but complainant in his own wisdom denied the same. Hence OP prayed this complaint to be dismissed with cost.

9. After the stage of version the case is set down to adduce evidence from both the parties. Accordingly complainant filed his affidavit evidence with certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act and along with 8 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. Complainant reiterated as stated in his complaint and one Nadim Hashmi who is working as process specialist – ORM in OP company and also the authorized person, OP No.1 to 4 adduced evidence on behalf of OPs, filed Certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act. In support of oral evidence OP No.1 to 4 has produced 3 documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. Both the counsels filed written arguments along with citations. We perused the documents on record and proceeded to pass the following order on merits.

10. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

11.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                     REASONS

12. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

13. After perusing the pleadings of both parties there is no dispute with regard to the complainant had booked hotel room at St. James Hotel and club, May fair, London through Make my trip app from 24.06.2022 to 30.06.2022. The same has booked on 28.02.2022 i.e. 4 months prior to the business trip to London by complainant. For that booking, complainant has paid full amount of Rs.2,24,320/- on 28.02.2022 is also not disputed by OP and same is at Ex.P.1. By the said documents Ex.P.1, we observed that complainant booked the hotel on 28.02.2022 which is confirmed in vide booking I.D No. NH74129200508606, the documents also reveals? Time for check-in and checkout on 24.06.2022 and 30.06.2022 respectively. It also reveals that free cancellation is valid till 23.06.2022 and cancellation charges are applicable after the above mentioned time. This cancellation policy disclosed by OP No.1 in its invoice booking voucher. Here the question of cancellation has not arised.

14. It is pertinent to note that complainant has travelled by Air from Bangalore to London Heathrow on 24.06.2022 after the journey of 12 hours, complainant directly reached St. James Hotel and Club, May Fair, around 3 p.m. but it was shocking that the booking reservation has not confirmed in complainant’s name. After several phone calls to OP No.1 hotline, OP No.1 did not take necessary and proper action to arrange alternative arrangement to the complainant when he was standing about 2 and half hours on road of London with his luggage’s.

15. It is important here to discuss that the complainant has paid full amount towards the booking that too 4 months prior to his program at London, disclosed the confirmation sent by OP No.1 at Ex.P.1. It is unfair that the complainant has faced difficulty in occupying the accommodation. With no other option when the OP has not made any proper arrangement to get in to an accommodation, complainant made his own arrangement at Hotel Café Royal by paying Rs.6,58,740/- which is at Ex.P.3 which is exorbitant amount since the Wimbolden Tennis tournament held in the month of last week of June every year at London. Due to the reason of hotels at London were pre-occupied and booked priorly, complainant got hotel Café Royal only for  3 days instead of 5 days which was re-scheduled his business meeting to fit into his short-end schedule. It resulted into cancel other programs as organized, get into embarrassment and financial loss to complainant. After several requests to OP for the inconvenience caused to him, requested for refund of excess money he paid to Hotel Café Royal, due to the instant booking of hotel and also leads to non availability of hotel rooms, as per his schedule. It is not accepted that the contention taken by OP about liability for the deficiency of service is unfair. Since, the complainant has trusted the OP app and booked the hotel believing OP is rendering good services to customers. When there is no privity of contract between the hotel and the customer, the lapses caused must be answerable by OP itself. Therefore the  contention of OP No.1 that its E-commerce entity, has no liability far deficiency of service, is not acceptable. If there is any genuinity and any bonafide intention for the inconvenience caused to complainant, OP could have come forward to make any alternative accommodation/ arrangement to help the complainant. At the stage, OP did not come forward to assist complainant, the reason for the same is best known to OP. Standing on the street with luggage after journey of 12 hours from his place, is only due to the negligent act of OP. For no fault complainant struggled heavily and make his own arrangement to occupy the other hotels by paying too much for lesser days, is unjust and unfair. The same has been brought to the notice of OP by sending regular E-mails, OPs only reply was the refund will be initiated. On 05.07.2022 OP refunded Rs.2,24,310/-  which is paid towards the hotel booked for the first time i.e. at St. James Hotel and Club, May Fair and also offered Rs.50,000/- towards compensation by OP to complainant. But complainant did not accept the compensation due to the inconvenience, mental agony caused from the act of OP is not compensated with Rs.50,000/-.

16. Though the complainant booked 4 months prior to his organized program and paid Rs.2,24,320/-, was refunded but for instant booking of Hotel Café Royal, complainant paid Rs.6,58,740/-. There was a difference amount of Rs.4,34,420/- which is obviously financial burden with no fault of him. After several requests by complainant, OP stated that he got approval for reimbursement of Rs.37,386/-, above the refunded amount of Rs.2,24,320/-. In our observation OP offered Rs.50,000/- towards compensation above Rs.2,24,320/-. But OP has approved Rs.37,386/- reimbursement. The reason for such merger amount of Rs.37,386/- is best known to OP.

17. Even after the legal notice sent to OP, on 19.09.2022 which were duly served on OP’s No.1 to 4, which are at Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6. Even after the receipt of legal notice, OP’s did not take trouble to reply to the legal notice and complied the claim of the complainant. It shows the arrogance Act of OP and the malpractice/Unfair Trade Practice practiced by OP. Without any genuine cause, hotel accommodation has not provided to complainant though it was confirmed 4 months prior but OP did not take any interest to provide alternative arrangement also when he was in difficulty. The above said all situations, deficiency caused and mental agony, stress and financial loss to complainant which should be compensated by OP’s.

18. Hence OP is liable to pay back Rs.4,34,420/- which is paid excessly to the alternative hotel by complainant at London with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 24.06.2022. OP is further liable to pay compensation for the inconvenience, hardship, mental agony caused to complainant at London of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

19. Since OP is E-commerce market platform, lakhs/crores of people trusting and utilizing their app and booking their tickets and hotels by paying required prices through out the world but OP lost the trust by not providing hotel accommodation and not provided any cogent evidence to defend its case. Hence, complainant proved his case. In our considered view, there is primafacie reason to decide that OP caused lot of inconvenience and mental agony to complainant and for not to repeat the same in future, no one should suffer in the hands of OP and to stop unfair trade practice OP is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as punitive damage to Consumer Welfare Fund U/S 39 (1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, to be remitted to Consumer Welfare Fund.  On the above reasons we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.   

20. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

                                   ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OPs No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay back Rs.4,34,420/-  with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 24.06.2022 till realization.
3. OPs further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs20,000/- towards litigation cost, within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount carries interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the order till realization.
4. OP’s shall remit Rs.25,000/- towards punitive damages U/S 39 (1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, to Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days from the date of order.
5. Furnish the copies to both the parties, without cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 1^st day of JANUARY, 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;