<br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops are, that he made an online hotel booking on 19-06-2009 through the 1st OP using the credit card issued by the 2nd OP. That Hotel booked for his stay at Chennai is known as Surya International. That a sum of Rs.1703/- was paid as rentals for that Hotel. That he visited Chennai on 20-06-2009 and reached the hotel and saw the room was allotted in 3rd floor, lift was not working, it was not possible for the aged parents to climb three floors. There was no room service, no broad band internet, room was small and dark with tattered linen. He could not use that room therefore have to go for alternative one. That he contacted the 1st OP to rectify the situation on the same day, but there was no response. Then on 18-07-2009 he issued a letters to both the Ops but of no use and therefore has prayed for a direction to Ops to refund the rentals, to grant Rs.5000/- as cost of relocating, Rs.3000/- towards expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and exemplary damages of Rs.5,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> OPs have appeared through their advocate and filed version. OP 1 has denied in having had caused any deficiency in his service as a booking agent having booked the room. It is further stated that the compliant is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party that is Hotel Surya International. That he had only booked a room in that hotel on the request of the complainant and he has performed his duties by booking and confirming the accommodation and has discharged all his obligation. By booking a Deluxe AC room for three persons for stay and has given the voucher to the complainant which contain other details has done his job. The complainant has made false allegation by stating that there is no lift in the hotel but in his letter dated 18-07-2009 stated that lift was not stopping at the 3rd floor but it was stopping at 4th floor and the customers had to come from 4thfloor to 3rd floor. This OP denying other allegations of deficiency and also denying his liability has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> The 2nd Op who his none other then the banker who has issued a credit card to the complainant, narrating the procedure of issuing the credit card, handling the credit card and the process touching the credit card has denied any role in the deficiency caused to the complainant by the 1st OP or the Hotel where the complainant had stayed. Understanding the facts of the case and the allegation of the complainant we are of the view that OP 2 is not at all in any way accountable to the complainant in the inconvenience he allegedly suffered in the Hotel. Therefore the 2nd OP denying his liability as prayed for dismissal of the compliant. <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OPs have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective compliant and version. Complainant alongwith the compliant has produced a copy of receipt for having paid rentals to the hotel room, copy of the rules and restriction of the hotel, then the particulars of the service officered by the hotel, copy of his account statement to prove debiting of hotel rent with a copy of the letter he has addressed to OP 1. OP 1 has not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for the both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have caused deficiency in their service in not getting room facilities of his liking? <br /> <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point No: 1 in the negative.<br /> Point No: 2:see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS: POINT No:1:: <br /> As found from the contentions of the parties, complainant booked a room in a hotel called Surya International at Chennai through OP 1 as his agent though the credit card on rental of Rs.1703/-. We find no dispute regarding this fact but it is the grievances of the complainant that on his reaching the hotel on 20-062009 with his aged parents he found that the lift was not working properly, his parents had to climb staircase, room service was not there, linen was tattered, there was no broad band internet, room was small etc. It is further contended that he did not make use of the room but was forced to take a room elsewhere by incurring extra expenditure. Admitting that OP 2 had issued a credit card to the complainant but we do not understand why the complainant had made OP 2 as a party to this compliant when absolutely there is no allegation of any sort of deficiency in the service of OP 2. Even during the trial the complainant has not proved any deficiency in the service of OP 2 in his making use of credit card. Hence the complaint against OP 2 is to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> As contended by OP 1 the complainant has not made that Surya Hotel International as a party to this complaint when according to him he found deficiencies in the Hotel. It is not understandable as how the complainant even after knowing that the rentals have been paid by him to the hotel and he suffered deficiency in the hotel why he did not make the hotel as a party in this compliant. OP 1 as found is not operating from Chennai, he is operating from Delhi therefore the 1st OP it is found has acted as an agent to book a room in a hotel at Chennai for and on behalf of the complainant. Therefore it is evident that the 1st OP had no personal knowledge of the facilities. But he find to been carried away by the facilities offered by that hotel as rightly stated by OP 1 he has booked the room, confirmed booking, and room was offered for the use of the complainant on the date of his going there. Therefore for such short comings of the hotel management the liability of OP 1 in our view is very very limited as pointed by OP 1. We find variance in the allegations of the complainant regarding number of deficiency’s as compared to the letter addressed to the OP 1 and the allegation made in this compliant. Even other wise we find no deficiency in the acts of OP 1 in booking the room. But in the absence of that hotel as a party, the complainant is not entitled for the relief under the facts and circumstances of case as such the complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed and we answer point NO:1 accordingly and pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. <br />