Haryana

Kaithal

CC/100/2022

Smt.Ritu Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Make My Trip India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Arvind Kumar

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.100/2022.

                                                     Date of institution: 22.04.2022.

                                                     Date of decision:02.06.2023.

Smt. Ritu Gautam wife of Sh. Ashok Gautam, Advocate, both residents of 1548(8)/4, R.K.Puram Colony, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. through its Director/Manager/Concerned Official, DLF Building No.5, Tower-B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-2, Sector-25, Gurugram-122002.
2. Shri Hare Krishna Hotel, 4, near Neel Kanth Dham, Shanti Knj, Rishikesh Road, Haridwar, Uttrakhand through its Partner/Prop./Manager.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. C.L.Uppal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                OP No.2 exparte. 

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Smt. Ritu Gautam-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant planned to go to Haridwar alongwith her husband and with Dr. Vijay Rohilla and his wife on 15.04.2022 at the eve of Purnima and Hanuman Jayanti to be held on 16.04.2022.  The complainant booked two rooms with the OP No.2 through OP No.1 and the OP No.1 booked the same vide booking ID-NH70201205811156, PNR No.0082550606 dt. 15.04.2022 and paid an amount of Rs.5068 to the OPs through online.  The complainant alongwith her husband and other couple started from Kaithal at about 3.00 p.m. in private car and reached at the hotel of OP No.2 at about 7.30 p.m.  The representative of OP No.2 told that the hotel is full and misbehaved with the complainant and others.  Due to festival, there was no hotels available in the near by area and the complainant was forced to spend the night alongwith her husband and others under open sky at Har Ki Pori.  The complainant and Smt. Kusum fell ill as they spent the night under open sky.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas OP No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 01.12.2022 passed by this Commission.  OP No.1 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the answering OP merely acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers; that the answering OP, upon the request received from its customer, forwards the same to the concerned Hotel/Hospitality service providers through software’s embedded on its web portal; that the answering OP is not responsible or liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the concerned Hotel.  Once the confirmed bookings are shared with the customer, the answering OP is discharged from its obligations and duties qua the said booking.  It is further stated that the answering OP shall only be liable to offer alternative property to the complainant or provide the complete refund.  In the present case, when the complainant was denied accommodation by the OP No.2, the answering OP firstly offered accommodation in alternative properties and on the denial of the same by the complainant, subsequently offered the complete refund alongwith compensation for any other property booked by the complainant which was denied by the complainant and as such, he has relinquished all his rights qua the answering OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, Ex.CW3/A, Ex.CW4/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C11 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant planned to go to Haridwar alongwith her husband and with Dr. Vijay Rohilla and his wife on 15.04.2022 at the eve of Purnima and Hanuman Jayanti to be held on 16.04.2022.  The complainant booked two rooms with the OP No.2 through OP No.1 and the OP No.1 booked the same vide booking ID-NH70201205811156, PNR No.0082550606 dt. 15.04.2022 and paid an amount of Rs.5068 to the OPs through online.  The complainant alongwith her husband and other couple started from Kaithal at about 3.00 p.m. in private car and reached at the hotel of OP No.2 at about 7.30 p.m.  The representative of OP No.2 told that the hotel is full and misbehaved with the complainant and others.  It is further argued that being fed up from the beahviour of the staff of OP No.2, a call to the emergency no. of police 112 was given and application in writing was given to the police but no action was taken against the officials of OP No.2.  It is further argued that due to festival, there was no hotels available in the near by area and the complainant was forced to spend the night alongwith her husband and others under open sky at Har Ki Pori.  The complainant and Smt. Kusum fell ill as they spent the night under open sky.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that the OP No.1 merely acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers.  It is further argued that OP No.1, upon the request received from its customer, forwards the same to the concerned Hotel/Hospitality service providers through software’s embedded on its web portal and OP No.1 is not responsible or liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the concerned Hotel.  It is further argued that once the confirmed bookings are shared with the customer, the OP No.1 is discharged from its obligations and duties qua the said booking.  It is further argued that the OP No.1 shall only be liable to offer alternative property to the complainant or provide the complete refund.  In the present case, when the complainant was denied accommodation by the OP No.2, the OP No.1 firstly offered accommodation in alternative properties and on the denial of the same by the complainant, subsequently offered the complete refund alongwith compensation for any other property booked by the complainant which was denied by the complainant.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has also submitted written arguments and has placed reliance upon the order dt. 18.10.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar  bearing C.C.No.624 of 2018 in case titled as Mr. Bhupinder Singh Vs. Make My Trip; order dt. 29.10.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (Punjab) bearing C.C.No.529 of 2019 in case titled as Manoj Bedi Vs. M/s. Make My Trip Ltd. and order dt. 21.02.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar bearing C.C.No.598 of 2019 in case titled as Mr. Ashish Arora Vs. Make My Trip 

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is clear from the Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C2 that the complainant booked two rooms with the OP No.2 through OP No.1 for 15.04.2022/16.04.2022 and paid an amount of Rs.5068/- to the OP No.1 as is clear from Annexure-C11.  The grievance of the complainant is that when the complainant alongwith her husband and other couple reached at hotel in Haridwar, the rooms were not provided to them.  It is clear from Annexure-C9 that the complainant tried to make several calls on telephonically from mobile number 01204385430 with the OP No.1 but OP No.1 could not make any arrangement for the complainant.  The complainant also wrote an application to S.H.O., Police Chowki Saptrishi, Haridwar as per Annexure-C10 but no action was taken by the police.  It is also clear from Annexure-C3 that high price of Rs.4219/- was showing online at 8.10 per night (2 Adults) for Shri Hare Krishna Hotel, wherein check-In & Check-Out dates are mentioned as 15 April, Friday-16 April, Saturday.  The complainant has supported her versions by way of filing affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, Ex.CW3/A, Ex.CW4/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C11.  Whereas, on the other hand, the OP No.2 did not appear even single time in the Court and was proceeded against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the OP No.2.  So, in view of documentary evidence available on the file, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  The authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the OP No.1 are not distinguishable but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund the booking amount of Rs.5,068/- to the complainant within 45 days and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  However, it is made clear that if the OPs are failed to make the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,068/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:02.06.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.