BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite PartyNo.1 is areputed hotel where the rooms can be booked through the online service of Opposite Party No.2 and 3. The Opposite Party No.4 is the hotel association in which all hotels of Digha & Shankarpur are the members. The Opposite Party No.5 is the administrative authority of Purba Medinipur.

2. The Complainant booked a “Standard Non-A.C Room” at OP No.1’s hotel through the Mobile App of OP No.2/3 by paying Rs.792.00 for One Day’s accommodation charge from 12:00 PM on 17.11.2018 (Check-in) to 11:00 AM on 18.11.2018 (Check-out) vide Booking Id:NH7216996968700, PNR: 0042254193.(Copy of such Booking Ticket is annexed hereto)

3. The Complainant when reached at the OP No.1’s hotel at around 6:40 PM for check-in, firmly refused to get entered into his booked room on the terms and conditions of “Single boarder not allowed” although he booked the room for single accommodation only and there was no such terms and condition in the booked tickets.

4. The Complainant further states, he was asked by the OP No.1 to bring “No Objection Certificate – NOC” from the local Police Station to allow in the hotel for which he went to the Digha Mohona (Coastal) Police Station and ultimately with the intervention of Officer-in-Charge become able to check-in at his booked room around 9:10 PM.

5. Subsequently, a letter dated: 26.11.2018 has sent by the Complainant to OP No.1 with a copy mark to the OP No.2/3 and the Secretary, Consumer Affairs Department for seeking proper clarification/explanation about the NOC along with some other queries as mentioned therein in Point No.1 to 10.(Copy of such Letter is annexed hereto)

6. The Complainant also further states, he has made several written communications to all the Ops including the District Magistrate (Purba Medinipur), Managing Director – West Bengal Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (WBTDCL) and the OP No.5 under the Right to information Act, 2005 to know about any such law/rule/notification/order to the effect that “a single person would be barred from check into any hotel room at Digha” and/or about the “NOC from the Local Police Station” but, no reply received.

7. Therefore, the Complainant given written representation before the Consumer Affairs Department (Govt. of West Bengal) where only OP No.2/3 were present in mediation on 14.01.2019 and the OP No.1 as per the telephonic conversation with the department sent a “Letter of Apology” on 12.02.2019 by shifting all blames to “Administrative Issues”. Therefore, the mediation proceeding has dropped by the department by drawing a Mediation Report dated: 12.03.2019 with a view to prefer the complaint by the unsatisfied complainant before this Commission.  (Copy of such Apology Letter and Mediation Report are annexed hereto)

8. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 17.11.2018 when the OP No.1 refuses the Complainant to singly enter in his booked hotel room by harassing unnecessarily without producing any valid document for the same.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To pay Compensation of Rs.20,000.00 by OP No.1 for negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

2. To direct the Ops for praying unconditional apology and to take appropriate measures so that no other person should suffer such a humiliating situation in future.

3. To pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

9. The Op No.2 and 3, being represented by its’ Learned Advocate has contested the case by filing Written Version against the complaint. Notices were duly served upon the Op No(s).1 to 5 but, Op No(s).1, 4 and 5preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against them. While resisting the claim of the Complainant the Ops No.2 and 3 in its’ Written Version stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law because they are merely a facilitator for booking the confirmed tickets on behalf of the OP No.1 who is the actual service provider. Although in the Website of OP No.2/3, the policy of “no-single occupancy in the city” is clearly mentioned under User e-Agreement in which the Complainant entered by clicking the “I Agree” pop up or button; the OP Nos.2/3 on its own accord had got the Complainant’s police verification by which the Complainant was allowed to stay at the concerned hotel of the OP No.1 and moreover, subsequently offered and diligently refunded the entire booking amount of Rs.792.00 upon good will and gesture to the Complainant. As the main grievance of the Complainant was about the harassment due to the uncooperative behavior of the OP No.1’s concerned Hotel’s Staff, it was beyond the control of the OP No.2 and 3. However, the OP No.2 and 3, with a customer centric approach, addressed the Complainant’s grievance by trying to find an alternative solution. Therefore, the OP No.2 and 3 unnecessarily had been made parties in this case. Moreover, the Registered Office of the OP No.3 is situated at Delhi, this Commission has no requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute.(Copy of Email referring to the intimation of refund to the Complainant is annexed hereto)

10. Under the above circumstances, the Op No.2 and 3 has prayed for dismissal of the present case with costs.

11.             Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?   
2.  Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

12. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Affidavit of the Complainant, Written Version filed by Op No.2 and 3, Evidence along with all receipts and other documents.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that complainant is a consumer having grievances against the   OPs, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. Op No(s).2 & 3 is merely facilitators for booking the confirmed tickets on behalf of the OP No.1, who is the actual service provider. It is always the duty of the service provider i.e. OP No.1 to make available of the relevant Notification, Order or any supporting valid Paper or Document for such enacted Rule and Law to the effect that “a single person would be barred from check into any hotel room at Digha” and about the “NOC from the Local Police Station” for providing/producing its’ customer i.e. the Complainant on demand for transparency and to clear any such confusion.

5. Similarly, the OP No.2 and 3 being a facilitator can’t wash its hands by refunding the entire booking amount or by saying, the policy of “no-single occupancy in the city” is clearly mentioned under User e-Agreement in which the Complainant entered by clicking the “I Agree” pop up or button. It is simultaneously the duty of the OP No.2 and 3 to upload the relevant Order, Notification or valid Paper or Documents for such enacted Rule and Law to the effect that “a single person would be barred from check into any hotel room at Digha” and about the “NOC from the Local Police Station” for clarity and to clear any confusion of the Traveler/Complainant. Moreover, it has not been explained how the booking is confirmed for a Single Guest and subsequently why the Complainant is allowed to stay singly in the hotel room without Police NOC by violating the govt. rules (if any), whereas per the terms and conditions of the hotel “Single boarder not allowed”. However, in a good gesture as they claim OPs 2 & 3 refunded the booking amount in full

6. Therefore, it clearly transpires from the above, there are elements of negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the OP No.1. Having understood the same, the Op No.1 tendered apology and Op No.2 and 3 respectively refunded the booking amount.

7. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs, the complainant has not made any specific claim against ops 1, 2, 4, and 5 save and except for tendering of apology which can’t be asked to do by this Commission, cause of action clause in the complaint also does not specifically does not speak for when the cause of action arose against them. As such the complainant can’t get any other reliefs from Op No(s).2 & 3 as they refunded the full booking amount. However, Op No.1 can’t get absolved from the mischief of negligence, unfair trade practice, harassment and deficiency in service even it is done by his servant or agent. So, we think it would just and proper if we direct the OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000.00 towards compensation and Rs.2,000.00 as litigation costs to the Complainant within 2 months from the date of this order in default the OP No.1 will have to pay @ Rs.100.00 per diem (day)  in addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of this order.

8.  Accordingly, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

1.  Thus, the complaint case succeeds in part.

Hence, it is

          O R D E R E D

That the CC-564 of 2019 be and the same is allowed in part ex-pate   against OP No.1, dismissed on contest against OPs   No.2 and 3 and dismissed ex-pate against Op No(s).4 & 5.

The OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.2,000.00 as litigation costs to the Complainant within 2 months from the date of this order in default the OP No.1 will have to pay @ Rs.100.00 per diem (day) in addition to the said amount for non-compliance of order from the date of this order.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the Complainant  and OP No(s).1, 2 & 3  free of cost.