For the Complainant                       -  Souvik Guha & Sanchita Dey

For the OPs                                       -  Avijit Chatterjee & Asha Ghosh

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SMT. SAHANA AHMED BASU, MEMBER. 

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a recognized consumer association / voluntary consumer organization within the meaning of Section-12(1)(b) of the C. P. Act, 1986 and filed the instant complaint on behalf of aggrieved consumer Sri Sub rata Nayek who approached the organization seeking redress of the consumer dispute suffered by him. The aggrieved consumer booked one double bed room in Hotel Chhaya Neer at Purulia through O.Ps. M/S YATRA ONLINE PVT LTD. for pleasure trip for the period from 23/12/2018 to 26/12/2018 against payment of Rs.3798/- through online. The O.Ps. issued confirmation regarding hotel booking through e-mail. The aggrieved consumer made transport arrangement for to and fro travel to Purulia including sightseeing on payment of Rs.6000/- (non-refundable advance) to M/S Sri Shreyoshi Travels. On telephonic discussion the Hotel authority informed that booking of room was not done by te O.Ps. for the 23/12/2018 to 26/12/2018 and there were no online booking facility in their hotel. The aggrieved consumer contacted with the employees of the O.Ps. who needed 24 to 48 hours to resolve the issued but the O.Ps. confirmed that they are unable to provide lodging facilty in the Hotel Chhaya Neer at Purulia on scheduled dates. Having no other alternative the aggrieved consumer requested the O.Ps. the O.Ps. for alternative accommodation at Purulia but the O.Ps. expressed their inability to prove any alternative arrangement at Purulia. O.Ps. are deficient in rendering service to the aggrieved consumer and the attitude of the O.Ps. are tantamount to unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint.

O.Ps. have contested the case by filing W.V. which they have stated that this Forum have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The positive case of the O.Ps. is that the aggrieved consumer approached them for booking a double bed room at hotel Chhaya Neer, Purulia and also paid Rs.3798/- through online. The booking amount has already been refunded to the aggrieved consumer on 23/12/2018. The O.Ps. offered the aggrieved consumer a sum of Rs.2000/- along with rail fare as good gesture. The O.Ps. have no liability to pay compensation to the aggrieved consumer the liability is on the part of the hotel Chhaya Neer, Purulia. The consumer case is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The allegation of the aggrieved consumer is frivolous and vexatious under the definition of Section-26 of the C. P. Act, 1986. Thus, the aggrieved consumer is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

Decision with Reasons

Sri Mihir Kumar Pal, Secretary of the complainant foundation has tendered E-Chief through affidavit. The O.Ps. failed to file any E/Chief in spite of opportunity given to them. Both parties also filed BNAs.

We have examined the entire materials on record and giving a thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced before us. 

Admittedly the aggrieved consumer Mr. Subrata Nayak had booked a double bedded room at Hotel Chhaya Neer, Purulia, through the OPs for a pleasure trip during the period from 23.12.2018 to 26.12.2018 by paying Rs. 3798/-. The OPs confirmed the booking through e-mail along with booking voucher in respect of Hotel Chhaya Neer at Purulia. After receiving the confirmation mail, the aggrieved consumer made transport arrangement for to and fro  to Purulia against payment of Rs. 6000.00 only in advance as a Non-refundable advance to M/S Shreyoshi Travels. It is also admitted that on 17.12.2018 the OPs requested the aggrieved consumer via e-mail to cancel the booking. The aggrieved consumer requested the OPs for alternate accommodation at Purulia. But the OP expressed their inability on the ground that hotel was sold to else one. 

On perusal of the documents on record we find that the OP confirmed the booking at Hotel Chhaya Neer, Purulia via e-mail bearing Confirmation No YAT0006059605 along with booking details and invoice  to the aggrieved consumer. Photocopy of the money receipt goes to show that Rs. 6000.00 was paid to Shreyoshi Travels also as transport charge and it is clearly mentioned in the receipt that ‘advanced money cannot be refunded’. Therefore, there is no dispute that the aggrieved consumer had to lose his heard earned money due to cancellation of hotel booking without committing any fault on his part. Ld. Advocate of the OPs argued that it was the duty of the said hotel to keep its inventory details displayed at OPs’ portal by the hotel, there were rooms available at the time of booking and accordingly booking was confirmed. Later it came to OPs’ knowledge that the said hotel was already sold. It was the duty of the hotel authority not to book the room for the specific period. We find no substance in this argument. Therefore, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs .

Ld. Advocate for the OPs has further submitted that the booking amount of Rs 3798.00 has already been refunded to the aggrieved consumer on 23.12.2018 as good gesture and the OPs offered an amount of Rs.2000.00 along with train fare. But they failed to furnish any document in support of their contention. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept such argument.

Another argument made by the OPs that every person transacting through their online platform is contractually bound by the Master User Agreement. In view of this agreement the aggrieved consumer having used the platform User and by virtue of having accepted the terms of said agreement have agreed to this contract. The said agreement is the governing contract by virtue of acceptance by the aggrieved consumer as well as by virtue of the Information Technology Act of 2000 .As per the Clause 21 of that Master UserAgreement the parties have tothe parties have tosubmitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts ofGurgaon , Haryana .In this regard Hon’ble NCDRC in the case NEHA SINGHAL V/S UNITECH LTDjustified , “To emphasise, lauserelating to jurisdiction of ‘Courts’ in the Agreement between the parties cannot by itself over-ride the statutory right of the complainant conferred by the above-mentioned provision of the Act that would defeat the purpose and object of the Act .”

Needless to say that hotel booking is an obvious part of the long distance travel and requires devoted attention to meticulously maintain record so that the customer may not face any inconvenience. Therefore the alleged deficiency on the part of the OPs have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and in this regard a sum of Rs . 2000/- as offered by OPs was not parity with the situation.

On evaluation of the materials on record and in view of the foregoing discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the aggrieved consumer is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

This issue is also decided in favour of the Complainant and disposed of accordingly.

O R D E R E D

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps. with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

The O.Ps. are directed to refund Rs.9,798/- (Rupees nine thousand seven hundred ninety eight only) along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- only in the form of interest to the aggrieved consumer within 45 days from the date of this order with litigation cost failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order fling appropriate application u/s-25 / 27 of the C. P. Act, 1986 against the O.Ps.