Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Sumit Ghosh Roy
For OP/OPs : Mou Saha/Makbul Rahaman
Date of filing of the case :16.11.2022
Date of Disposal of the case :29.08.2024
Final Order / Judgment dtd.29.08.2024
The basic fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant Avijit Basak booked a Classic A.C Room through OYO APP on 27.07.2022 booking dated 06.08.2022 at Hotel Collection O 80911 spacetel with booking I.d QWWT7392 for Rs.513/- for Classic A.C room through his credit card in OYO APP. The OYO Executive stated that the price is correct. The property Manager told to call him before the booking date. The complainant called the Manager on 05.08.2022 but he replied that they cannot provide the room because the room rate at the time was Rs.2500/-. The complainant called the OYO Customer and complained them. The customer care told him that they could not provide him the room which was booked. They will shift him in another hotel or refund his money. Thereafter they sent a mail regarding this complaint with ticket no.2445375472 then he told the entire incident to his partner. The OP again suggested him with 4 available hotels of which the complainant name OYO flagship 84103 Blue Star Guest House. After hotel shifting process is completed they sent a mail with ticket no.1805171515. The hotel check in time was 12 O’ clock noon. They reached the hotel at 11:30 A.M and told the I.d number to the receptionist , who confirmed the booking and demanded Rs.1200/- since it was booked for a room of two guests instead of one guest. On asking the customer care told that due to mistake it was so happened. Accordingly, the complainant requested to arrange the same room in that hotel. But he suggested to shift to another hotel. At the moment it was raining heavily . So the matter was complained to the customer care but the customer care did not entertain it and the complainant had to leave the hotel in heavy rain . The complainant contacted with the Manager of Blue Star namely Abhishek. He told him to arrange to refund the money but the complainant did not agree and as such the present case is filed. After leaving the hotel he saw in his mobile that it was showing check in but the complainant did not stay at the hotel. The complainant again came to the hotel that despite not staying hotel why it was so happened. On asking the customer care they told it was due to their technical problem. Thereafter, they sent him one mail with ticket no.1805171515. He again booked a Classic A.C room on 08.08.2022 booking day 17.08.2022 at hotel Collection O 3033 classic in which booking I.d TBJZ9636 for Rs.508/-. His booking was confirmed. The property Manager confirmed the booking and sent him a mail with ticket no.1039401962. The property Manager on asking to confirm the booking told to call the day before booking at evening. But when he was contacted he denied to give the room on the ground that the amount at the time of booking was low price . So, the complainant paid the total amount that was showing while booking. When the complainant contacted with the customer care he informed that the property Manager is demanding extra money . On asking the customer care told that they have no authority to give any mail regarding extra money. On 17th August, he had called the customer care about the previous incident. They also told that they do not have any complimentary agreement with the hotel which he booked and they could not give such a high amount of complimentary. Then he sent a mail with a ticket no.4271342279. Therefore, the complainant claimed that the OP company has harassed and defrauded the complainant for which he claimed compensation for Rs.16,70,000/-.
The OP contested the case by filing W/V wherein they denied the allegation against them. The positive defence case of OP is that the complainant approached the OP No.1&2 for the first time on the check in date and highlighted the issue that his check-in is denied after which the agent on behalf of OP No.1&2 offered alternate accommodation but the complainant refused to take the same. Thereafter, the agent offered to return the prepaid booking amount but he denied. The OP No.1&2 as per the terms and conditions provided resolution to the complainant but the complainant denied to take the same. The complainant again approached OP No.1&2 and highlighted the same issue after which the agent of the OP No.1&2 informed the complainant that they had two properties available for shifting but the complainant informed the agent that he will discuss with his accompanying member and will get back to the agent. Thereafter, the complainant contacted with the agent and informed that he wanted the property which he booked. The agent immediately contacted the property Manager of spacetel house OYO 80911 and tried to convince the property Manager . The Property Manager was adamant for complimentary of Rs.2,000/-. So, the agent offered alternate accommodation to the complainant and the booking was shifted to flagship 84103 Blue Star Guest House and a complimentary of Rs.172/- was added. In the Blue Star Guest House his check-in was denied because the complainant did not mention that there are three people and the booking was done only for one person. So, the Property Manager demanded extra Rs.1200/- for extra peoples. But the OP No.1&2 offered a refund and provided alternate accommodation to the complainant but the complainant refused the same and wanted to check-in the same property. The Property Manager modified the booking from double occupancy to single occupancy and booking as check-in the complainant was also asked to contact with the OP No.1&2 regarding refund but he did not contact and filed this case with malafide intention, to extract money from the OPs. The OPs further contended in W.V that it was the hotel who denied check-in of the complainant. The role of OP No.1&2 is only limited to provide the successful booking to the people at large and the rest of the operational liability is of the hotels. In the present case the OP No.1&2 provided successful booking however, it was the hotels who denied check-in , hence there is no liability of OP No.1&2. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. The OP No.1&2 is still ready to resolve the issue of the complainant and ready to refund the extra amount , so charged by the OP No.2 which shows bonafide intention of OP No.1&2 only if the complainant would share correct bank details with OP No.1&2. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties. The liability of OP No.1&2 is only limited to the amount equivalent to the price paid for the product and services giving rise to such claim. The OP No.1&2 claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following points emerged to be decided for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for Determination
Point No.1.
Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Point No.2.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Point No.3.
To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.
Decision with Reasons
Point No.1.
The OPs challenged the case as not maintainable on the ground that the allegation are not correct, it is false frivolous and misconceived.
After perusing the conflicting pleadings of both the parties and the evidence in the case record it transpires that the complainant booked the hotel from OYO that is the OPs on payment of specific amount of Rs.513/-.
The OPs did not deny the said fact. However, the OPs has denied some allegations. But the given facts and circumstances clearly show that the relation between the complainant and the OPs is well within the purview of the C.P Act as consumer and service provider.
The complainant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The amount of relief claimed also falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid observation the Commission is of the view that the present case is not barred under any provisions of law.
Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in affirmative in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2&3.
These points relate to ascertainment as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for an award.
The complainant in order to substantiate the case proved the following documents:-
Annexure-1:- 1st booking issue related to OYO mobile application screenshots copy.
Annexure-2:- 2nd Booking issue related to OYO mobile application screenshots copy.
Annexure-3:- Bank/Credit card statement copy of payment.
Annexure-4:- 1st Booking issue related mail copy, sending by OYO customer care executive.
Annexure-5:- 2nd Booking issue related mail copy, sending by OYO customer care executive.
Annexure-6:- OYO Hotel’s place details.
Annexure-7:- OYO Hotel’s terms and conditions.
The complainant also deposed by filing affidavit in chief.
It is the admitted fact that the complainant approached the OP No.1 OYO (Hotel and to OYO corporate) office for the first time on the check in date and highlighted issue that his check-in is denied. The agent of OPs offered alternate accommodation to the complainant but the complainant refused it. Thereafter, the agent offered refund of the pre-paid booking amount but the complainant denied.
It is also the admitted fact that the complainant with the agent and informed that he wants the property which he had booked.
So, it is crystal clear that the complainant wanted the same property which he had booked.
The complainant argued that he booked one particular room of a particular hotel and as such the OPs are supposed to give him the same hotel. There is nothing wrong in it that a person who booked a hotel, the party/manager/the owner must give the particular room of the hotel otherwise it would tantamount to breach of the agreement /contract.
It is the further admitted case of the OPs that the OP No.1&2 came to know that the property manager modified the booking from double occupancy to single occupancy and marked the booking as checked in.
The OPs could not justify as to why the said modification was done. On the contrary it is further found from the pleadings of the OPs that the complainant was asked to contact the OPs with regard to the refund.
The pleadings of the OPs further discloses regarding the provision of agreement between the OP No.1 and the patron. As per the said agreement if any check-in is denied for a confirmed booking, hotel shall provide the alternate accommodation of comparable standard failing which a penalty of twice the booking amount/alternate accommodation provided by OYO whichever is higher will be charged.
The OPs could not explain with cogent evidence as to why the booking was changed/modified. So, there is sufficient ground regarding refusal of the complainant to accept the alternate accommodation. There is also nothing to show that the complainant was informed in advance regarding the said change and alternate accommodation.
The pleadings of the OPs further supports the case of the complainant in as much as it is stated in W/V that it was the hotel who denied check-in to the complainant without considering the fact that there is an active agreement going with OP No.1&2.
So, the OP No.1&2 has vicarious liability for the act of the agent as principal. Moreover, the booking was done through OP No.1&2 and as such OP NO.1&2 cannot escape from the liability arose due to the fault of their agent.
In addition to the oral evidence of the complainant in the form of affidavit in chief and the documentary evidence the Commission find that the claim of the complainant has been strengthened with the pleadings of the OPs wherein the OPs categorically stated in their pleading that in whole scenario it was the hotel who denied check in of the complainant . Moreover, the role of the OP No.1&2 is only limited to provide the successful booking to the people at large and the operational liability is of the hotel. In the present case the OP No.1&2 provided successful booking to the complainant, however, it was hotels who denied check in .
The OPs has also contended that the complainant wanted to admit 3 person in the said hotel in lieu of 1 person for whom the hotel was booked.
The complainant himself argued that there is no document to establish that the complainant wanted to check-in for 3 person for the alleged hotels instead of 1 person.
It is the settled position of law that an admitted facts need not be proved.
The OP No.1&2 further pleaded that the OP No.1&2 is still ready to resolve the issue of the complainant and is ready to refund the extra amount so charged by the OP No.2, which shows the bonafide intention of OP No.1&2 only if the complainant would share his correct bank details with OP No.1&2.
The pleadings of the OPs clearly discloses that the claim of the complainant was genuine and the refusal to give him proper room is duly supported by oral and documentary evidence. The agent of the OPs demanded extra amount which is reflected from the further pleadings of the OPs. The OPs categorically stated when the complainant reached the property check-in was again denied with reasons that the complainant did not mention that three peoples and the booking was done only in one person, therefore, the property manager was Rs.1200/- for extra people.
We have already found that the OPs could not prove any document to show that there were three persons with the complainant. The OPs could not submit any video footage of the said hotel to establish that the complainant had three peoples including him at the disputed point of time.
The OPs did not file any BNA, however, they have prayed for accepting the W/V as BNA of OPs.
Thus having assessed the entire oral evidence in the form of affidavit in chief and the documentary evidence vis-a-vis the pleadings and the evidence of the OPs the Commission comes to the finding that the opposite parties have acted with the complainant in such a manner which tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid finding points no.2&3 are answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the complainant.
Consequently, the complaint case succeeds on contest against the OP No.1&2 with cost.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the complaint case no.CC/108/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1&2 with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). The complainant Avijit Basak do get an award against OP No.1&2 OYO Head Office and Corporate Office respectively for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) towards unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards litigation cost. The OP No.1&2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award money. Both the OP No.1&2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees one lakh five thousand) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the final award failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @10% p.a from the date of passing the final order till the date of its realisation.
All Interim Applications (I.A) stand disposed of accordingly.
D.A to note in the trial register.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,) ................ ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
I concur,
.......................................
MEMBER
(SHRI NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
