By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant has to appear SSE CPO examination at Sreekandapuram and for that purpose he booked a room at the second opposite party hotel through the website of first opposite party. The complainant could see rooms are available at the second opposite party and he remitted Rs.637/- through online. The room facility was offered with complementary breakfast.The complainant reported on 12/12/2019 at about 9.30 pm before the second opposite party and shown the booking details to the opposite party. But the second opposite party denied the room stating that it is rush period and he can be given room subject to payment of Rs.1,300/-. So the complainant contacted the first opposite party customer service and then it was told that he should be given room facility within short period. Then after half an hour the complainant again tried to contact the first opposite party customer service but he could not succeed. Since the complainant have to appear for examination on the next day, and the place of the opposite party not being familiar to complainant, he remitted Rs.1,300/- and availed room from the second opposite party.The second opposite party did not provide breakfast facility as offered earlier. The complainant thereafter his examination, contacted the first opposite party but there was no proper response from the opposite parties. On 16/12/2019 an amount of Rs.637/- was credited to the account of the complainant. The complainant demanded refund of Rs.1,300/- along with breakfast expense Rs.80/- and also compensation but the opposite party ignored the same and insulted the complainant.
2. The complainant alleges the first and second opposite parties with ill motive and with the object of making undue benefit acted as aforesaid and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to refund the amount collected by the opposite party without any justification and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-, the cost of breakfast 80 rupees along with cost of proceedings 5,000/-.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and both the opposite parties entered appearance through the counsel but the first opposite party alone filed version. The second opposite party did not file version.
4. The first opposite party vehemently opposed the averments and allegations contained in the complaint. The opposite party contended that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to back his claim that he had visited Sereekandapuram to take the alleged examination. The first opposite party submitted that they had issued confirmed bookings/hotel vouchers to the complainant, for which the complainant availed the services of the first opposite party and after the issuance of the confirmed bookings the opposite party is discharged from its duties and obligations towards the complainant. The opposite party further submitted that being a technology - driven consumer centric company, the opposite party has provided a system to the concerned hotel and the concerned hospitality service provider where in, the concerned hotel / hospitality service provided as live inventory of rooms available at their end specifically for the bookings made through the first opposite party i.e. GOIBIBO on the prevailing rates which are set from time to time and it is further the pre locative of the concerned hotel to keep its inventory accessible till the time all the rooms are not completely booked. The second opposite party herein i.e., hotel, Oyo 60596, choice residency, Kannur failed to close the inventory despite being aware of the fact that the inventory is available to be booked from the end of the hotel. The Opposite party submitted that when the complainant approached the first opposite party representative at the instance of denial of check-in by the concerned hotel due to discrepancy in prices between the hotel and the hospitality service provider, the representative of the first opposite party duly offered the complainant the full refund of the consideration paid towards the desired room in the concerned hospital and the complainant duly agreed to the same and the refund was also processed to the complainant on 16/12/2019 which has been duly admitted by the complainant. It is also submitted that the refund to the tune of Rs.637/- was processed after duly consulting with the complaint.
5. The opposite party denied that they indulged in any sort of unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant was only denied check –in by the second opposite party due to the discrepancy in prices between the concerned hotel i.e Oyo which has not been impleaded as a party in the complaint. The opposite party herein duly refunded the full amount paid by him towards the booking and being a consumer centric company as a gesture of good will, the opposite party is willing to compensate by providing the complainant with the additional differential amount paid for any alternate booking made by the complainant at his end or by providing him with additional 100% refund of the amount paid him towards the booking. Hence the prayer of the first opposite party is that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of first opposite party and so the complaint is to be dismissed with the exemplary cost to the first opposite party.
6. In addition to that the opposite party submitted that they are a company i.e. IBIBO group Pvt Limited, duly incorporated under the company’s act 1956 and enjoys immense goodwill and reputation for providing superlative services to thousands of consumers. Besides other accolades bestowed upon and recognition awarded to the opposite party i.e best travel portal India by world travel awards, including the highest customer satisfaction and a fundamentally strong position in the industry. The opposite party provides all the travel related unblemished services and information to its customers but not limited to air ticketing, railway ticket booking, bus booking, hotel booking at very competitive prices. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had booked as per ID HTL X7UDGKG on 12/12/2019 and the booking amount was Rs.637/-, the gust name as Arun and another with hotel stay details Oyo 60596, choice residency, Kannur, check in date 12/12/2019, check out date 13/12/2019. Once the booking is confirmed by the service provider the same is shared with the intended gust and i.e., is properly done in this matter. There is no responsibility for the first opposite party due to deficiency caused on the part of the second opposite party herein.
7. The opposite party also submitted that there is question of territorial jurisdiction also in the matter and the claim of the complainant is exorbitant and without any basis.
8. The complainant and first opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is screen shot which reveals transaction of Rs.637/-. Ext. A2 is screen shot of website details of second opposite party. Ext. A3 is cash bill issued from the second opposite party to the complainant for Rs.1300/- dated 13/12/2019. The documents on the side first opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B4. Ext. B1 is copy of Certified true copy of the resolution passed by the board of directors of IBIBO group private limited (‘’ The company”) at its meeting held on Thursday, November 25, 2021 at Gurugram – 122002. Ext. B2 is copy of user agreement Ext. B3 is copy of company master data. Ext. B4 is copy of hotel confirmation voucher.
9. Heard complainant and first opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration.
- Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties?
- Relief and cost
10. Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute that the complainant booked room of the second opposite party through the online website of the first opposite party. But the service of second opposite party was denied to the complainant against the booking. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed version in detail and also affidavit in support of his contention. The second opposite party though filed vakkalath not turned to file version or affidavit. The contention of the first opposite party is that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. They are being well reputed travel portal India has got history of highest customer satisfaction and have strong position in the industry. They are the only facilitator for booking on behalf of the customers with the concerned service providers. In this complaint the first opposite party had provided the confirmed booking of the hotel Oyo 60596. But the second opposite party denied the service to the complainant. Hence the submission of the first opposite party is that they are not liable for any default caused from the side of hotel i.e., Oyo 60596. So the question remains only regarding the responsibility for the bitter experience of the complainant. Even though the role of the first opposite party is admitted as a facilitator we are of the view that they are also liable for the deficiency of service or defective service or unfair trade practice caused from the side of second opposite party. It can be seen that the complainant booked room at the second opposite party for a night stay to attend a serious examination which is very important in his life. It can be seen that on account of defective service from the side of second opposite party caused much mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant and so he is entitled for a reasonable amount as compensation from the side of second opposite party. The second opposite party collected Rs.1,300/- from the complainant despite he had issued Rs.637/- in advance as a part of booking through the online. There was an offer of free breakfast as part of online booking the complainant was denied the room as well as free breakfast by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is entitled for the refund of cost to the breakfast also. It can be seen that the first opposite party entered appearance in this complaint and properly submitted their version. But the second opposite party despite service of notice not turned up to present the case of the second opposite party. Hence it will be proper to direct the second opposite party to pay Rs.1,380/- to the complainant. It is to be noted that the first opposite party has refunded the advance booking amount of Rs.637/-, but that will not meet the grievance of the complainant since he suffered a lot of mental strain and agony due to the act of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled for compensation for which the first opposite party is also liable. The Commission finds Rs.15,000/- as reasonable amount of compensation. It will be proper to direct both the opposite parties to pay the compensation amount to the complainant. The first opposite party is at liberty to collect the compensation amount paid by them to the complainant from the second opposite party if they wish to do so. We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. In the light of above facts and circumstance we allow this complaint as follows.
- The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,380/- to the complainant,
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant,
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to the complainant.
- The first opposite party is at liberty to collect the amount paid as compensation to the complainant from the second opposite party if they wish to do so.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled 9% interest per annum for the entire amount from the date of complaint to till payment.
Dated this 28th day of October, 2022.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3
Ext.A1: Screen shot which reveals transaction of Rs.637/- .
Ext.A2: Screen shot of website details of second opposite party.
Ext A3: Cash bill issued from the second opposite party to the complainant for Rs.1300/- dated 13/12/2019.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B4
Ext.B1: Copy of Certified true copy of the resolution passed by the board of directors
of IBIBO group private limited (‘’ The company”) at its meeting held on
Thursday, November 25,2021 at Gurugram – 122002.
Ext.B2: Copy of user agreement
Ext.B3: Copy of company master data.
Ext.B4: Copy of hotel confirmation voucher.
VPH
