DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

K.C. Sharma (Karam Chand Sharma) s/o Sh. Shadi Lal r/o H.no.243, MES Colony, Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

M/s Make My Trip, SP Infocity, 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Gurgaon (Haryana).

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Rajesh Verma, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Naveen Sharma, Counsel for the OP.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he alongwith his family (consisting of his wife and two minor children) planned to visit Mata Vaishno Devi Temple in May 2012.  They were to be accompanied by his friend and his family (consisting of his wife and two minor children) as well. 

According to the complainant, in order to avoid any inconvenience, as it was the peak season, he booked two rooms, on 18.5.2012, in Hotel Kings, opposite Taxi stand Katra from 20.5.2012 to 22.5.2012 through the opposite party vide Annexure C-1. The complainant received a copy of the itinerary (C-2) from the opposite party. However, when the complainant alongwith his family, as well as his friend’s family, reached the Hotel at Katra on 20.5.2012, he was told that no rooms are available.  When the complainant confronted, the person at the reception, Mr. Pardeep Sharma told that he received call from the side of the opposite party at 2:30 PM on 20.5.2012 to book one room in the name of the complainant but he was told that no rooms are available.  In such circumstances, the complainant had to hire rooms in another hotel for which an amount of Rs.2,838/- per room was charged (C-4 & C-5).  The complainant vide email dated 21.5.2012 (C-5) lodged protest to the opposite party narrating the inconvenience faced by him as well as others and sought compensation.  The opposite party vide its email dated 21.5.2012 (C-7) apologized for the inconvenience caused and further vide email dated 29.5.2012 offered vouchers worth Rs.2,000/- for the next holiday package.

In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           The opposite party in its written statement admitted that the complainant approached it on 18.5.2012 for booking rooms at Hotel Kings, Katra.  It has been pleaded that two rooms were booked at the said hotel as per the requirement of the complainant and the expected documents were also handed over to the complainant on the same day i.e. 18.5.2012.  It has further been pleaded that even the payment was also made to the hotel vide cheque dated 21.5.2012. According to the opposite party, it had performed its duty of booking the rooms and sending confirmation about the same to the complainant.  It has been averred that if the rooms were not made available by the hotel, then it is the hotel who is deficient and liable to compensate the complainant.  It has further been averred that the offer of vouchers worth Rs.2,000/- was made just as a goodwil gesture.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

4.                           The complainant had preferred present complaint on the ground that having booked required accommodation for his as well as his family members at Katra, while they were on their way to Vaishno Devi for pilgrimage, and is aggrieved for non availability of the promised accommodation on the given date and time and having suffered harassment for this reason.  The opposite party has admitted the fact that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.6520/- through his credit card against which an accommodation of two rooms was booked with Hotel Kings for this purpose.  However, the only dispute is with regard to the fact that the complainant even though promised a confirmed accommodation, was left marooned on reaching his destination.  The opposite party while admitting the fact of availing its services by the complainant has also categorically mentioned that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the grievance of the complainant is due to the non availability of accommodation at Hotel Kings, Katra, which is not impleaded as a party by the complainant.  Raising objection, of non joinder of necessary party, the opposite party has sought the dismissal of present complaint on this score alone. 

5.                           We have perused the documents tendered by the complainant and it is established from Annexure C-9 that an amount of Rs.6,520/- was paid  to the opposite party on 18.5.2012 but at the same time the entry made by the Manager, Pardeep Sharma, of Hotel Kings, Katra on Annexure C-3 confirms that the complainant was not accommodated even though a confirmed booking of two rooms  was intimated by the opposite party.  From the version of the opposite party, it is revealed that the opposite party forwarded the booking amount through a cheque on 21.5.2012 which confirms that it had miserably failed to make necessary bookings on 18.5.2012 as per their promise and intimation given to the complainant.  Hence, having received, a consideration for the services promised and not providing the same amounts to deficiency in service on its part. However, during the course of oral arguments, counsel for the opposite party had claimed that free voucher of Rs.2,000/- was offered  for future occasions but, to our mind, such offers do not act as balm to the injuries  caused by the dis-service of the opposite party.  The counsel for the opposite party has also mentioned that the sum of Rs.6,520/- has been refunded to the complainant but even this action too does not absolve the opposite party of its fault. 

6.                           In the light of above observations, we feel that the present complaint deserves to succeed against the opposite party and the same is allowed against it.  The complainant deserves to be adequately compensated for the harassment suffered by him as well as his family.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation for the harassment and mental agony on account of deficient services.  The opposite party is also saddled with Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.         

7.                           This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10.4.2013.

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER