DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Thursday, the 25^th day of July 2024

CC.446/2023

Complainant

P.G. Gangadharan,

                    ‘Varnam’

Subash Nagar Colony,

East Hill, Edakkad Road,

East Hill, Kozhikode – 673 005.

Opposite Parties

1.         M/s Make My Trip India (P) Ltd,

DLF BLDG, No.5, Tower B,

DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2,

Sector 25, Gurugram,

Haryana – 122 002.

2.        General Manager,

Gokulam Park Hotel, Kaloor,

Kochi – 682 017.

(OP1 – By Adv. Sri. A.K. Supriya,

OP2 – By V. Manikanda Kumar)

                                                                         ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT.

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant had booked hotel accommodation on 16/04/2023 for his stay on 19/04/2023 at Gokulam Park Hotel, Kochi by paying Rs. 4,575/- through the first opposite party. This booking was subsequently cancelled by the complainant. Though he was eligible for 100% refund of money, the first opposite party confirmed as per noting on their website that they were refunding Rs. 4,570/- after deduction of Rs. 5/-.

3. Though the first opposite party had promised to contact the complainant, that was not done. The amount was not refunded even after issuance of registered notices to the opposite parties.
4. Subsequently, the complainant had booked for accommodation for stay in the same hotel on 21/04/2023 through another travel agency GOIIBO by paying the amount. He had stayed in the hotel and they had issued receipt for the same. This subsequent reservation has nothing to do with the present complaint which arose because of the failure to refund the booking amount of Rs. 4,575/- paid to the opposite parties.
5. Hence the complaint for refund of Rs. 4,575/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and also the legal/other miscellaneous expenses.
6. The opposite parties have resisted the complaint by filing written version separately wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint.
7. According to the first opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable. The first opposite party is engaged in the business of E-commerce travel organiser by providing an online platform to book tickets, accommodation, holiday packages etc from among various service providers. The complainant had booked hotel accommodation for 3 adults at Gokulam Park Hotel and Convention Centre, Kochi for one night on 16/04/2023 through the online portal of the first opposite party. The payment of Rs. 4,575/- as booking amount by the complainant is admitted. However, the complainant cancelled the booking on 18/04/2023 and asked for 100% refund of the booking amount. The first opposite party confirmed to the complainant that Rs. 5/- would be deducted from the booking amount and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,570/- would be refunded to him and he was given the option to choose the mode of refund. The complainant selected the option of refund to wallet at the time of cancellation of the booking. As per the option chosen by the complainant, the amount of Rs. 4,570/- was refunded in to the wallet of the complainant on the date of cancellation of the booking itself and the same was duly confirmed to the complainant via a notification on his e-mail id along with details of refund. Since the refund of Rs. 4,570/- had already been processed to the wallet of the complainant, the first opposite party is not liable for payment of the any further amount. There was no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, according to the first opposite party, the complaint is only to be dismissed with costs.
8. The second opposite party has admitted that on 16/04/2023 the complainant had booked accommodation in their hotel for 1 day through the first opposite party. On the same day, the complainant booked another room in Sree. Gokulam Convention Centre owned by the second opposite party which is adjacent to Gokulam Park Hotel. The booking amount has to be refunded by the first opposite party and not by the second opposite party. The second opposite party has not received any amount from the complainant. The second opposite party is not liable for the amount paid to the first opposite party. The room was booked and cancelled through the first opposite party. The second opposite party is not aware as to whether any amount was paid to the first opposite party by the complainant. No registered letter from the complainant was received by the second opposite party. They are unnecessarily dragged to the proceedings. There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the second opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to seek any relief from them. With the above contentions, the second opposite party also prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.                   
9. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

1. Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

       2. Reliefs and costs.

10. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. The first opposite party remained absent at the time of evidence. The second opposite party did not adduce any evidence.  
11. Heard.
12. Point No 1:   The complainant has approached this Commission alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The first opposite party is engaged in the business of e-commerce travel organiser by providing an online platform to book tickets, accommodation, holiday packages etc from among various service providers. The second opposite party is the Gokulam Park Hotel, Kochi. The specific allegation of the complainant is that there was failure to refund the booking amount paid by him to the first opposite party on 16/04/2023 for his stay on 19/04/2023 in the second opposite party hotel, even though the booking for accommodation was cancelled.   
13. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the booking voucher dated 16/04/2023, Ext A2 is the copy of the e-mail and Ext A3 is the copy of the notice dated 11/05/2023.
14. That the complainant had booked accommodation at second opposite party hotel for one night on 16/04/2023 through the first opposite party and paid Rs. 4,575/- as booking amount is admitted. It is not disputed that the booking was cancelled. The first opposite party has agreed to refund of Rs. 4,570/- after deducting Rs. 5/-.
15. The grievance projected by the complainant is that he has not received the refund amount so far. The case tried to be set up by the first opposite party is that they had refunded the amount due to the complainant to the wallet as per the option chosen by him. But this is stoutly denied by PW1, who has categorically asserted that he had not received the amount. PW1 has asserted that he had never given any such consent to transfer the amount to the wallet. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve PW1. It may be noted that even though the first opposite party had taken a contention of repayment in to the wallet in their written version, they chose to remain absent at the time of evidence and PW1 was not cross examined. No evidence is let in by the first opposite party to show that they had refunded the amount in the mode as stated in the written version. The evidence of PW1 in this regard remains uncontroverted. PW1 was not even cross examined by the first opposite party. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant in this regard. Ext A1 shows that the complainant is entitled for 100% refund till 19/04/2023. Here admittedly the cancellation of the booking was before 19/04/2023. So the complainant is entitled to get full refund from the first opposite party.
16. Admittedly, the booking was made through the first opposite party and the payment was made to the first opposite party by the complainant. The complainant had no monetary transaction with the second opposite party. Hence we are of the view that the second opposite party cannot be held liable for the non-refund of the booking amount. The second opposite party is entitled to be exonerated.
17. As already stated, there was neglect on the part of the first opposite party in refunding the booking amount to the complainant as promised. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the booking amount of Rs. 4,575/- from the first opposite party. Undoubtedly, the complainant, who is a senior citizen, was put to mental agony and inconvenience due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.           
18. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                  a)  CC.446/2023 is allowed in part.

b) The first opposite party is hereby directed to refund the booking charge of Rs. 4,575/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred seventy five only) to the complainant.

c)  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.

d) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

e) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 4,575/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

f)  The second opposite party is exonerated.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 25^th day of July, 2024.

Date of Filing: 29/09/2023

                       Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

                 PRESIDENT                                                                                   MEMBER                                      

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 -  Copy of the booking voucher dated 16/04/2023.

Ext A2 -  Copy of the e-mail.

Ext A3 -  Copy of the notice dated 11/05/2023.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

NIL

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1  -    P.G. Gangadharan  (Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite party

NIL

                       Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

                 PRESIDENT                                                                                   MEMBER                                      

             True Copy,     

               Sd/-

                                                                                                      Assistant Registrar.