DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.305/2021
Yadhu Krishnan
Senior Engineer, Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Pragati Maidan
Delhi-110002. .…Complainant
VERSUS
OYO Rooms
Rep. by its Customer Relations Manager
Corporate Office
9th Floor, Space Palazo Sector 69
Gurugram-122001. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Raghul Raja for complainant
Present: Adv. Yubaraj Chatterjee proxy counsel for Adv. Prashant Arora for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:21.10.2021
Date of Order :14.10.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint against OP i.e. Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
- It is stated that complainant had booked Oyo for himself and his family for a property constituted Golden Leaf, Chakarata Road, Sudhowala, Dehradun from 08.11.2019 to 09.11.2019 and had paid Rs.1250/-. Online true copy of the receipt is annexed as annexure-1 dated 06.11.2019.
- It is stated that complainant along with his family reached the said hotel at 01.00AM on 09.11.2019 where he was made to wait for nearly 20 minutes as there was no one at the reception. Later, after 30 minutes the complainant was told that rooms were occupied and when the complainant showed the booking ID of the complainant and his family made to wait for nearly two hours and then was informed by the receptionist officially informed that the booking was no longer available as it was allocated to someone else. At around 3.40AM the said hotel authorities after being repeatedly reminded, shifted the complainant and the family to a nearby place claiming it to be affiliated with OP but it looked like a hostel and did not bear the Oyo Board. It is stated that when the complainant went upstairs he saw people smoking weed in the corridor and the rooms were not at all clean.
- It is the case of the complainant that as the alternative accommodation was not safe to stay and the room was also unclean and the complainant could not find an alternate accommodation forcing them to sleep whole night in the car. It is stated that the climate was chilling cold and the complainant and his family had to undergo a lot of discomfort and problems on account of mismanagement of OP who was trying to make illegal profit by booking the complainant in the property which was already booked.
- It is further stated that the management of the OP had promised that the refund would be credited within 24 hours, however, it is stated by the complainant that the same is not enough considering the difficulty that the complainant and his family had to undergo due to the careless, reckless, negligent and unprofessional service.
- In their reply, OP has stated that complaint is frivolous, misconceived. It is stated that OP does not own or operate the hotel themselves which is done by the owner or an operator/lessee contracted by the owner.
- It is stated that OP enters into a Marketing and Operational Consultancy Agreement with such hotels and homes and OP lists them on its online platform and provides various digital and marketing services to help to increase their occupancy and generate revenue.
- It is stated that the consumer as per their requirements fill the booking form online and books the rooms. Once the booking is created, OP sends a booking confirmation voucher in which booking details of the guests are specified and a link is provided to the guest policy. The guests/consumers at the time of check-in shows the said voucher to the front desk manager of the hotel.
- OP does not deny the booking made by the complainant or the payment made by him. It is stated that the complainant has received refund of prepaid booking.
- It is further stated that OP contacted an investigation with regard to the booking of the complainant and it was found that complainant did not inform his arrival as per the guest policy and as per the terms and conditions. OP immediately tried to find out the alternate accommodation for the complainant however, it was late at night and OP could not find the alternate accommodation and therefore immediately refund of the prepaid booking was done.
- It is stated that this complaint has been filed to illegally extract money from the OP. It is stated that complainant approached the social media escalation team of OP on 28.11.2019 seeking compensation of Rs.10,000/- after which the customer care representative of the OP shared an apology mail dated 28.11.2019.
- It is the case of the OP that OP had abided by the terms and conditions of the guest policy according to which an alternate accommodation was sought to be provided to the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant has failed to implead the hotel which had denied the check in to the complainant. OP has relied on “Limitation of Liabilities Clause” mentioned in their terms and conditions and which is reproduced as under:-
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein or elsewhere, Oyo’s entire liability to the user for any claim arising out of the availing Oyo services/browsing the Oyo platform shall be limited to the amount equivalent to the price paid for the product and services giving rise to such claim”. It is stated that the liability of the OP is only limited to the amount equivalent to the price paid for the product and services giving rise to such claim.
- It is further stated by the OP that as per their ‘Marketing and Operational Consulting Agreement’ if any check-in is denied for a confirmed booking, hotel shall provide alternate accommodation of comparable standard failing which penalty of twice the booking amount/cost of alternate accommodation provided by Oyo - whichever is higher, will be charged.
- It is stated that relief sought by the complainant are beyond the agreed terms and conditions of warranty and also decided the ambit of the Act. It is stated that compensation can be awarded to consumer only in respect of loss or injury suffered due to the negligence of OP-1.
- Complainant, in his rejoinder has stated that the OP has not denied the facts. Complainant has relied on definition of Consumer under Section 2(7) (ii) of the CPA 2019 and the definition of service as defined in Section 2(42) of the CPA 2019. It is stated that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the CPA 2019. It is stated that the complainant and his family had to face paramount difficulty on account of careless, reckless, negligent and unprofessional services rendered by the OP. It is stated that mere refund of the amount paid for the service which is complained of will not be proportionate to the hardship faced by the consumer because of such deficiency.
- Both the complainant and OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. It is clear from the documents filed by the complainant on record that the booking was done by the complainant which was later cancelled or not honoured by OP and its affiliated hotel. OP has also admitted to this fact. OP has relied on the fact that the complainant should have announced its arrival however, this averment is merely a bald averment which is not supported by any document or terms and conditions placed on record by the OP.
- It is further seen that the OP as per the ‘Marketing and Operational Consultancy Agreement’ imposes penalty on its affiliated hotel for not honouring the commitment of the OP yet it is not ready to pass on that benefit to the consumer and relying on its terms and conditions states that it is only bound to either provide alternate accommodation or the liability of the OP is only limited to the amount paid by the consumer for such services.
This Commission finds such an approach to be highly unfair and holds the OP responsible and deficient in its services of not honouring the services promised to the complainant. OP is held to be deficient in not providing the room booked in advance by the complainant as also to the fact that the complainant was stranded along with his family at the wee hours of morning at a hill station in the month of November. Therefore, this Commission directs the OP is pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within three months from the date of pronouncement of the order failing which the said shall carry interest @5% per annum till realization.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
