MR. RAHUL & MR. SACHIN V/S BHARAT VERMA - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Panchkula

CC/142/2018

BHARAT VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. RAHUL & MR. SACHIN - Opp.Party(s)

BHARAT VERMA

29 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA

Consumer Complaint No	:	142 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	13.08.2018
Date of Decision	:	29.07.2019

Bharat Verma S/o Late Sh. Gulshan, H.No.343, Old Housing Board Colony, Sector-19, Panchkula, Haryana-134109

….Complainant

Versus

1. Sh. Rahul & Sh. Sachin, Manager, Hotel Clarion Inn Sevilla, K-Area Rd, Gulmohar Complex, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Shimla- Kalka Highway, Dhakoli, Zirkapur, Punjab- 140603.

2. MakeMY Trip India Pvt Ltd. DLF Building No.5 Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-2, Sector-25, Gurugram, Haryana-122002.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties: Complainant in person.

Sh. Pankaj Khullar, Advocate for OP No.1.

OP No.2 already ex parte v.o.d. 19.11.2018.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1. The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant booked hotel (OP No.1) via internet website www.makemytrip.com and paid the full amount of Rs.7,640(including wallet money and coupon) for his international (The Netherlands) guest Sh.Klaas Bijlsma. On 28^th July 2018 before and after booking he specifically asked for the services and amenities they provide and they (OP No.1) told him that non-vegetarian food, Wi-Fi and other mentioned (on said website) are available and will be provide to guest. After the same he booked the room for 3 nights (28^th July 2018 to 31th July 2018) on OP No.2 website and got the confirmation on his email too. He dropped his guest at OP No.1 site at around 9:00 PM on 28^th July 2018 and again confirmed from front desk team about amenities and services and that time too the person confirmed about food and wi-fi etc. mentioned on OP No.2 website is available. However, next morning his guest told him that hotel team denies to serve non-vegetarian food and also do not have working wi-fi. In addition to the same leakage in his room (room no.102) complaint was also reported to the hotel but not even a single issue was sorted out by them. After written complaint and phone conversations with OP No.1 (Sh.Rahul and Sh.Sachin, Manager at front desk) on same day, they bluntly refuse to help them which forced them to check out on very first day itself and also OP No.2 failed to help them due to arrogant staff behavior of OP No.1. After that he again contacted OP No.2 for refund as both parties failed to provide the facilities which he was promised and they told him that issue will be sorted out in 3-4 hrs. However, till evening he didn’t receive any call or confirmation. Then upon contacted again to OP No.2 they confirmed him that Sh.Sachin(Manager at OP No.1 site) confirmed that facilities promised were not given to the guest but as booking was on non-refundable terms so they will not refund the money to them. However, OP No.2 decided to give him partial refund on their own behalf. The complainant has been made to suffer due to the abovesaid acts due to false promise done by OP’s. Hence, the present complaint

2. Upon notice OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; no territorial jurisdiction; no locus standi; the complainant does not fall within the ambit of definition of consumer as under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant has not come with clean hands. On merits, OP No.1 stated that complainant has booked the room in the hotel in question for commercial purposes. The complainant has not disclosed the purpose of visit of Sh. Klaas Bijlsma in India. The complainant was having business relations with Sh. Klaas Bijlsma and for the business meetings. Further the present complaint is filed by Sh. Bharat Verma but the room was booked for Sh.Klaas Bijlsma and Sh.Klaas Bijlsma reside in the hotel on 28^th July,2018. Hence complainant has no locus standi to file the present compliant as there is no authorization from the guest who actually stayed in the hotel or affidavit of Sh. Klaas Bijlsma. Further, OP No.1 denied that the complainant has made the full amount of Rs.7640/-. It is stated that as per booking confirmation duly attached with the complaint on page no.5 the total amount was Rs.10,190/- and the complainant has made part payment and Rs.2,550/- were outstanding. The name of the guest and email ID mentioned on the booking voucher. No proof of booking that the rooms were booked by the complainant. It is further denied that hotel team denies to serve non-vegetarian to the guest. It is stated that the hotel used to serve eggs/omlate in the morning menu as non-vegetarian but as the guest asked to get the chicken and mutton in breakfast. Even on the request, the OP No.1 has resolved the issue of guest. Further there was leakage issue reported by the complainant which was resolved by the OP within an hour. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Annexure R-1/A and closed the evidence. Civil Secretariat

4. We have heard learned counsels for complainant, OP No.1 and gone through the record carefully.

5. It is an admitted fact that Sh.Klaas Bijlsma stayed in the hotel Clarion Inn Sevilla on 28.07.2018. It is also an admitted fact that aforesaid customer Sh. Klaas Bijlsma left the hotel on the next day i.e. 29.07.2018 after having breakfast in the said hotel. The complainant admittedly has deposited an amount of Rs.7,640/- for three day’s stay of the said customer. An amount of Rs.2,550/- has been refunded by OP No.2 to the complainant at the request. Now, the complainant has sought the refund of the balance amount alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the ground that the aforesaid Sh. Klaas Bijlsma left the hotel after one night stay due to certain issues such as non providing of non-veg food in the breakfast, non availalibility of wi-fi facility and leakage in the room.

The OP No.1 while denying the contentions of the complainant has taken several objections which may be summarized as under:-

That the complainant has no locus standi to file the present case as the complainant has impleaded Sh.Rahul and Sh.Sachin, Manager instead of impleading the hotel Clarion Inn Sevilla as OP No.1.
That the complainant does not fall within the ambit of definition of consumer as defined as under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
That the complaint is liable to be dismissed as Sh.Klaas Bijlsma who actually stayed in the said hotel during the intervening night of the 28^th July and 29^th July has neither filed an affidavit in support of the contention of the complainant nor authorized the complainant to file the present complaint.

6. Before proceedings further to discuss the case with regard to the alleged deficiency in the case on the part of the OPs, we deem it expedient to dispose of the above objections first. We take up the above objections for discussions as under:-

We find no merit in this objection as aforesaid Sh. Rahul and Sachin have been impleaded as manager of the hotel i.e. Hotel Clarion Inn Sevilla and not in their individual capacity. The booking of the hotel was made by the complainant through OP No.2 by making a payment of Rs.7,640/-.The official of the OP No.2 held telephonic conversations with Sh. Rahul and Sh. Sachin, with regard to the refund of the amount as is evident from Annexure C-3. Thus, we reject the objections regarding impleadment of Sh. Rahul and Sh. Sachin in their personal capacity.
& 3. The objections raised at serial no. 2 & 3 are with regard to the status of the complainant as consumer, hence the same are being discussion together. In this regard, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 vehemently contended that the complainant had booked a room in the hotel for a commercial purpose as the complainant was having business relations with Sh.Klaas Bijlsma. The learned counsel contended that the present complaint has been filed by Bharat but the room was booked for Sh.Klaas Bijlsma who stayed in the hotel on 28^th July 2018. The learned counsel also stated that the e-mail were sent and received on email th July on free of cost basis.

7. Now adverting to the merits of the case, we find that the complainant has alleged the deficiencies on the part of the OPs, during the stay of Sh.Klaas Bijlsma, such as non providing of non-veg food in the breakfast, non availability of wi-fi facility and leakage in the room.

The OP No.1 has taken the plea that the hotel used to serve eggs/omlate in the morning menu in lieu of non-veg food but as the guest was from the Nertherlands, he desired to have chicken and mutton in the breakfast, and the issue was resolved to the entire satisfaction of the customer. The learned counsel stated that the other issue pertaining to leakage was also resolved within an hour. On the other hand, the complainant stated that no issue was resolved as alleged by the OP No.1.

8. From the proceedings of the parties, we find that Sh.Klaas Bijlsma during his stay on 28^th July 2018 in the Hotel Clarion Inn Sevilla had issues with regard to non serving of the non veg food in the morning, non availability of Wi-Fi facility and leakage in the room. The OP No.1 has admitted the leakage in the room but stated that it was rectified within an hour. With regard to wi-fi facility, the Op No.1 is silent. Even about providing of non veg food in the morning it has not been clarified as to how the issue was resolved to satisfy the customer. In our opinion said Sh.Klaas Bijlsma being not satisfied with the services of the OP No.1 left the hotel in the morning of 29^th July, 2018 whereas the room was booked for three nights.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.1 while delivering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

11. As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP No.1:-