Punjab

Patiala

CC/17/287

Ms/ Godwin Hotel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Oyo Rooms - Opp.Party(s)

Mayank Malhotra

03 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 287/2017
Date of Institution	:	2.8.2017
Date of Decision	:	3.3.2023

 

M/s Godwin Hotel, The Mall Patiala through its Partner S.Surjit Singh.

 

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus            

 

1. M/s OYO Rooms through its Manager Ashish Madan, 325 Spaze Tech Park Tower, B-Sohna Road, Gurgaon Haryana.
2. Chandni Chauhan, Manager/Concerned official, M/s OYO Rooms 325 Spaze Tech Park Tower, B-Sohna Road, Gurgaon Haryana.

 

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Mayank Malhotra, counsel for complainant

                             Sh.J.S.Sandhu, counsel for OPs.               

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by M/s Godwin Hotel through its Partner S.Surjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s OYO Rooms (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act      (for short the Act).
2. The averments put forth by the complainant are as follows:

          The complainant is running small hotel under the name of M/s Godwin Hotel, The Mall, Patiala and is earning his livelihood from the income earned from the hotel. The OPs are in the business of on-line booking of the hotels, for on-line customer through internet.

          In the month of November,2016, OPs offered their services to the complainant for on line booking of rooms on commission basis. It was verbally agreed between the parties that OPs will charge 20% of booking amount and will get booked rooms of complainant for 25-26 days a month.  It was also verbally communicated to the complainant that in order to get as many as booking of rooms certain specifications are required such as change of mattresses, change of LEDs, false ceiling, lift in the hotel etc. Accordingly complainant fulfilled all the required specification by spending an amount of Rs.12lac. OPs gave sufficient business for about 2 months i.e. upto mid of March 2017.

          It is alleged that on-line website being operated by the OPs showed entire hotel booked whereas at the same time entire hotel used to remain vacant. In this regard complainant sent various communications to the OPs through mails with the request to either give business or to cut off its name from their website being operated by them but OPs failed to adhere to the request of complainant.

          From 1.7.2017 when GST became applicable on booking beyond Rs.1000/-, complainant requested OPs on 22.6.2017, 4.7.2017 and 11.7.2017  not to book its rooms beyond Rs.999/- but website of OPs continued showing cost of room more than Rs.1000/-.There is thus deficiency in service on the part of OPs which not only caused huge loss in business but also mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint.       

3. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs, who appeared through counsel and filed their written statement having raised various preliminary objections. It is pleaded that complainant is not a consumer it being a commercial entity.

On merits, It is submitted that there is no prima-facie case against the OPs and the complainant shall be put to strict proof with regard to the averments made in the complaint. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4. In evidence, complainant furnished Ex.CA affidavit of S.Surjeet Singh, partner of M/s Godwin Hotel alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C20 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Akshat Sharma, authorized representative of Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. alongwith document Ex.OP1 authority letter and closed the evidence of OPs No.1&2.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is running a small hotel under the name of M/s Godwin Hotel, at Patiala and the OPs who were in the business of on-line booking of hotels, approached the complainant and offered their services on commission basis for booking of rooms in the hotel of the complainant. Commission of 20% was agreed between the complainant and OPs. It was assured that the rooms will be booked for at least 25-26 days during a month. The complainant was asked to renovate the hotel as per certain specifications of the OPs. Complainant was also advised to change mattresses, LEDs, false ceiling and also to provide a lift in the hotel. Initially sufficient business was given to the complainant. However, no business was given after March-2017 i.e. within 4 months of the verbal agreement. The matter was taken up with the OPs through e-mails Exs.C2 to C3, whereby the OPs were requested to give proper business or to D-link the hotel of the complainant from the website of the OPs but no purpose was served. It is also argued that when GST became applicable on the room rent beyond Rs.1000/-, the OPs were requested to display the room rent as Rs.999/- but the same was not adhered to by the OPs. A huge amount was spent by the complainant for  renovation of the rooms as per the specifications of the OPs, the bills for which are Exs.C6 to C18. However, OPs failed to provide any business as promised by them.
8. Ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that complainant is not a consumer in terms of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the entity is a commercial entity and is carrying out the business for profit. It is also argued that complainant is claiming compensation for damages and loss of business, hence does not fall within the purview of consumer. It is denied that any such agreement as alleged by the complainant was entered between the complainant and the OPs and also complainant was never asked to renovate the hotel rooms as per the requirements of the OPs.
9. After hearing the ld. counsel of both the parties, we are of the opinion that the hotel was renovated by the complainant on its own. The complainant has failed to prove that the renovation was done at the instance of the OPs. Moreover, the expenditure incurred by the complainant is for the renovation of the rooms of its own hotel and nothing has been paid to the OPs. The complainant has also failed to prove any agreement arrived at between them for renovation and reservation of hotel rooms as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President