4. On merits, while reiterating the pleas of preliminary objections, it is also submitted that being a consumer-centric company, when the representatives of the answering op was approached by the complainant regarding the above mentioned grievance of complainant, the answering op in the spirit of goodwill and to retain the trust which subsists in thousands of customers, offered and has already initiated full refund of the return sector booking amount of Rs.591/- on 19.7.2019. Further, without any prejudice, answering op is still willing to compensate the complainant. Hence, the complainant shall not be allowed to gain undue monetary advance for the same. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, hotel confirmation voucher Ex.C2, email of op no.2 Ex.C3 and copy of pass book Ex.C4.
6. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ekank Mehra, Deputy Manager (Legal) & Authorized officer Ex.RW1/A, authority letter Ex.R/1, copy of User agreement Ex.R/2 and company master data Ex.R/3.
7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and have also gone through the record as well as written arguments filed on behalf of op no.2 which is almost repetition of its written statement.
8. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. The complainant has also placed on file hotel confirmation voucher as Ex.C2, the perusal of which reveals that complainant booked one room in Hotel Royal Plaza at Delhi i.e op no.1 for 18.7.2019 through op no.2 and against the accommodation charges of Rs.773/- after giving discounts etc., an amount of Rs.591/- was charged from complainant. The booking of the room was done by complainant through online and amount was also paid through online to the ops by the complainant from his account from Sirsa, therefore this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint.
9. The grievance of complainant is that despite booking of the room in the hotel of op no.1, the op no.1 did not provide the room to the complainant and his friend stating that room is not available as op no.1 has already booked the rooms for some other persons. It is the case of complainant that then he immediately contacted customer care of op no.2 but neither any help was provided nor any alternate accommodation or help was provided by the ops. The complainant alongwith his friend waited till midnight and was forced to get alternate accommodation after midnight as because due to peak tourism no rooms were available in any Hotel. It is further the case of complainant that after refusal of ops, the complainant forced to get alternate booking in Hotel Hill Palace, Karol Bagh, Delhi where he paid Rs.2500/- as rent. The op no.1 though earlier appeared through counsel but did not file any written version and later on opted to be proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the pleadings and evidence led by complainant against op no.1 goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. The op no.2 though has alleged that they made full refund of the amount of Rs.591/- to the complainant but op no.2 has not placed on file any document to show the refund of the amount of Rs.591/- to the complainant. Since no room was provided to the complainant by op no.1 despite booking in its hotel, therefore, op no.1 has caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Though, op no.2 has asserted that op no.2 is not responsible or liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the Hotel but we found no substance in the said plea of op no.2 because despite booking of room in the hotel of op no.1 through op no.2 room was not provided to the complainant by op no.1 and no help or any alternate accommodation was also provided by either of ops i.e. op no.1 and op no.2 despite contact made by complainant at its customer care centre. So, there is also deficiency of service on the part of op no.2 towards the complainant. The complainant alongwith his friend had to go to another hotel in the midnight while traveling for long distance and had to spend huge amount for obtaining room in another expensive hotel and therefore, he has faced unnecessary harassment at the hands of ops no.1 and 2 and financial loss was also caused to the complainant.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment, financial loss including litigation expenses to the complainant (which also includes refund of the amount of Rs.591/- paid by complainant to the ops) within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which ops will be liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. However, it is made clear that in case it is found that op no.2 has any proof regarding refund of the above said amount of Rs.591/- to the complainant, then the said amount of Rs.591/- will be deducted from the above said amount of Rs.15,000/- and remaining amount will be paid to the complainant by the ops. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated:13.05.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
