Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                                                Complaint No. : 33

                                                          Instituted on     : 16.01.2020. 

                                                          Decided on       :  21.10.2022.

Shubham s/o Satish Kumar age 23 years, resident of Ashok Nagar, Meham-124112.

                                                                                                                ……….………..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. OYO Corporate Office 9th Floor, Spaze Palazo, Sector-69, Gurugram Haryana 122001.
2. Hotel New Snow Bird Aleo, Left Bank, Naggar Road, New Manali-175131 9418095425(Amar Nath)

..…….……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Mohan Bhoria, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

                   Opposite party No.2 exparte.

                                                ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that on 02.10.2019, he made two bookings in O New Snow Bird, Manali through OYO customer Service through booking ID No.(i) JGNL3854-10 rooms, 20 adults= Rs.8600/- and (ii) LPHU 1675-20 rooms, 60 adults= Rs.25455/-. He made the payment through debit card and a confirmation message was received. The booking was for 8 & 9 October 2019. On 08.10.2019 when complainant reached at Capital O New Snow Bird, Manali at 9:00 pm, the hotel Manager refused to check-in and said that the Tie-up of the hotel was cancelled and there was no confirmation of their booking.  The said manager also shown the tie-up cancellation mail. Complainant called the OYO customer Service 5-6 times  but neither any reply was given nor any hotel was provided and all the 47 boys, 33 girls and 4 teachers have to stand-up for two hours outside the hotel in bitter cold. Complainant had also made an another booking on 8.10.2019 vide booking id-BJMN7201(2 rooms 6 adults). But despite confirmation of all the three bookings, no check-in was allowed by the opposite parties. Finally they had to make another booking on the spot after giving extra charges.  As per the terms and conditions of OYO, the payment has to be refunded within 2-14 working days but their payment was refunded after one month on repeated 20-25 calls. The opposite party had given the booking confirmation  even after cancellation of their tie-up and received the payment but check-in was not allowed. Due to which the 85 people had to suffer mental and physical harassment. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the cost of Rs.120000/- which they had paid extra after the check-in denied by the Hotel and also to pay Rs.1000000/- on account of inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant and other members by the opposite party. 

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant had made 3 bookings for 1 day from 08.10.2019 to 09.10.2019 with 22 triple occupancy rooms and 10 double occupancy rooms, and had received various discount being offered by the opposite party No.1.  It is further submitted that the complainant paid INR 8600/- for the Booking ID-JGNL3854 along with INR 25,455/- for the Booking ID - LPHU1675 and for the Booking ID- BJMN7201, no amount was paid by the complainant as the same was required to be paid at the hotel. It is submitted that when the complainant reached the Hotel New Snow Bird, where the booking of the complainant was confirmed, check-in was denied to the complainant by opposite Party No.2. It was the fault of the opposite Party No.2 who did not provide check in to the complainant and also did not regard the active agreement with opposite Party No.1. It is submitted that after the complainant contacted the opposite Party No.1 with regard to the above mentioned issue, the opposite Party No.1 immediately contacted the opposite Party No.2 to resolve the issue,  however there was no response from the opposite Party 2's end. Thereafter in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the opposite Party No.1, the opposite Party No.1 refunded the amount paid by the complainant as per their policy. As per policy of OYO Service, “ If any check-in is denied for a confirmed booking, OYO shall ensure that User is provided with an alternate accommodation of comparable standards. In an event, where the alternate accommodation could not be provided OYO shall arrange for the refund of any pre booking amount collected from the User”.

It is submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite Party No. 1 as the opposite party No.1 has initiated the refund in regard to the said booking where the check in was denied by the opposite Party No.2.  The complainant duly acknowledged the refund and has sought wrongful compensation from opposite Party No.1. Further regarding check-in denied issue, the complainant and opposite Party No. 1 had to face harassment due to wrongful denial by opposite Party No 2 who did not regard active contract with opposite party No.1. In case there is any refund pending request, the complainant has to share the proof so that resolution can be provided by opposite party No. 1. However, opposite Party No 1 is not liable to pay any compensation for the wrongful act of opposite party No.2. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite party No.1 and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

3.                However, notice sent to opposite party no.2 not received back either served or unserved and after expiry of statutory period of one month, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.12.2020 of this Commission.

4.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A to Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.04.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1, documents Ex.OPW1/A to Ex.OPW1/C and closed his evidence on 07.06.2022.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by opposite party No.1 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had made booking of rooms through opposite party No.1 at the hotel of opposite party No.2 and paid Rs.25455/- and Rs.8600/- respectively on 02.10.2019 to the opposite party no.1 which is proved from the statement of account Ex.C1. As per message Ex.C5 opposite party No.1 confirmed the booking for 08.10.2019. As per the list Ex.C2, the number of boys is 47, no. of girls is 33 and no. of teachers is 5,  which shows that booking was made for alleged 85 members including the complainant. But when the complainant alongwith other members reached the hotel, they were denied to check-in on the ground that their booking was not confirmed  as the opposite party No.2 had already delisted their property. To prove the same complainant has placed on record copy of email Ex.C1 as per which opposite party No.2 has requested to delist their property from the website of opposite party No.1 from 1^st October 2019. But despite that opposite party No.1 made booking at the hotel of opposite party No.2. Due to denial of check-in, the complainant and other members have to stand-up for two hours outside the hotel in bitter cold and it was very difficult to arrange the rooms for 85 people at one go.  Hence the complainant had to make arrangement of the rooms after paying excess charges. As such they have not only suffered mental and physical harassment but also suffered financial loss. The booking of room was made by the complainant through opposite party no.1 and it was the duty of opposite party no.1 to make available the rooms to the complainant but the same was not done. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. As per written statement filed by the opposite party no.1 they have already refunded the booking amount to the complainant.  As such opposite party no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant for causing harassment and financial loss to the complainant.  

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.40000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded  amount of Rs.40000/- from the date of decision till its realization to the complainant.  

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

21.10.2022.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                                                …………………………..

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member