After hearing the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant we find that the complainants’ grievance is directed against Op 1 (An Website launched for effecting booking of the suites in hotel) and Op 2 (the Director of the hotel which was booked by the complainant for 11th and 12th October, 2021).
It is the complainants’ case that the hotel in question did not have any lift facility although the complainants booked two rooms in the 5th floor of the hotel having lift facility. It is the next case of the complainants that there was only provision for installments of lift but really no lift was found there in working condition. The complainants have alleged that the health condition of his ailing wife got deteriorated due to her stay in the 5th floor of the hotel of such a kind.
They have as such prayed for huge compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with other reliefs. But the material on record are insufficient to show up that before stepping in the booked rooms they complained to the hotelier or the booking agency (Op 2). May be that some alternative arrangements could have been done by shifting them to any other rooms in the lower floor.
The claim of the complainants that due to use of staircase the complainant 2 became ill is not well founded one. The doctor’s prescription to which reference has been made by the Ld. Advocate was issued on 09.04.2021; whereas the period of stay in the hotel was in between 11.10.2021 and 12.10.2021.
There is no denying the fact that anyone would suffer inconvenience to negotiate with the staircase leading to 5th Floor of any building. The complainant should have averted their stay in the 5th Floor by putting up some other hotel and in that case also they could have sought for getting back the amount paid.
Had they unfolded the story of their inconvenience before the hotel staff or manager the hotel authority could have made alternative arrangement for their stay in some other room. But there is nothing on record to show that they raised any such complaint before the hotel authority.
It is a matter of convenience and inconvenience. But every inconvenience is not actionable.
Under such a situation we do not think that the complainants have any real case of deficiency or defect in service which were hired by them.
As such the complainants call for no action.
Hence, it is ordered that –
the case be and the same is dismissed as being not admitted.
Let plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR
Dictated and corrected by
[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT
