Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/442/2018

Adish Kaushal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oyo Rooms - Opp.Party(s)

Manvir Singh Rana

11 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/442/2018
Date of Institution	:	07/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	11/03/2020

 

Adish Kaushal s/o Sh. Pardeep Kaushal, presently residing at Block No.2, Boys Hostel No.6, Panjab University Chandigarh (permanent Address H.No.64, Bagh Colony, Anandpur Sahib, Distt. Ropar, Punjab 140118).

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Oyo Rooms, 6^th Floor, B 3 Plaza, Sohna Road, Sector 49, Near I-Tech Park, Gurugram – 122018 through its Manager.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Manju Goyal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Counsel for OP

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The long and short of the allegations are, complainant needed a travel package for his elderly parents for Sikkim (North-East) and on 6.6.2018 one Sh. Pawan Arora, representative of the OP contacted him. Thereafter, complainant booked an expensive travel package (4 nights/5 days) from 20^th to 24^th June 2018 for his parents, Sh. Pardeep Kaushal and Smt. Minakshi Kaushal and on demand had transferred a sum of Rs.60,000/- in the account of the OP. Alleged, OP clearly mentioned to provide a cab in Gangtok till 9:00 p.m. alongwith complimentary breakfast and stay in a good hotel.  However, on 21.6.2018 cab driver of OP dropped complainant’s elderly parents at the market in Gangtok and refused to take them back to the hotel and they had to travel on foot to reach venue of the hotel which resulted into harassment to the elderly persons. Not only this, as was promised, OP had not provided three star hotel and even no meals were provided which was included in the package. Hence, complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and filed the present consumer complaint praying for refund of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written statement and denied the allegations as leveled in the consumer complaint.  The deposit of the amount of Rs.60,000/- with it for the services sought to be availed not disputed.  It is the case, as per terms and conditions, driver and the vehicle arranged by the OP was to strictly adhere to the itinerary provided and not to, in any way, deviate from the specified/common route. Further the vehicle provided during the tour was not at disposal basis and any travel after the activity decided in the tour was not permitted. In other words, it was not to be provided after 9 p.m. Maintained three star hotels namely Hotel Valentino and Hotel Sonamia Retreat were arranged for the parents. It was nowhere agreed the vehicle shall be available till 9 p.m. OP denied any deficiency in service on its part. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     No rejoinder or rebuttal evidence was intended to be filed by the complainant.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     Per allegations made, the services were to be provided to S/Sh. Pardeep Kaushal and Smt.Minakshi Kaushal, parents of the complainant.  These were the persons who were allegedly harassed due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The harassment was they were dropped in the market and thereafter the cab driver of the OP did not pick them up from the market on 21.6.2018 and they had to go on foot to the venue of the hotel. The other deficiency allegated was no meals/ breakfast etc. were served by the hoteliers which was promised as such.  These were the facts which were perceived by the parents of the complainant named hereinabove, hence their supporting affidavits were required to be annexed to substantiate the claim of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is not the case, complainant had accompanied his parents to the place of visit and, therefore, without the evidence of the parents of the complainant, allegations are not substantiated with the affidavit of the complainant, Sh. Adish Kaushal. These need to be corroborated by his parents. However, such type of evidence is lacking off from the record. 
7.     The claim of the complainant is his parents after local sightseeing on 21.6.2018 were dropped at the market in Gangtok and the driver refused to take them up and they had to travel on foot to the venue of the hotel. It is not mentioned at what point of time they were dropped in the market and as per the terms and conditions, reproduced in the written statement, the driver was not to deviate from the specified common route and he was not at the disposal of the parents of the complainant. No terms and conditions were shown by the complainant to say the driver was at their disposal or it was agreed the driver was to pick up his aged parents even after 9 p.m. It is the own case of the complainant, on the material date, local sightseeing was offered and they were dropped in the market probably on the request of the parents of the complainant themselves. This Forum cannot change the agreed terms and conditions. No specific breach of the terms and conditions was either pleaded or proved to the satisfaction of this Forum.
8.     The other allegations are, three star hotels were not provided which were agreed while the OP in its written statement had made reference of the hotels namely Hotel Valentino and Hotel Sonamia Retreat and has sworn in affidavit these were three star hotels. The complainant had failed to describe what are the facilities available in a three star hotel which were not provided to his parents in the hotels they actually stayed.  It is a vague allegation and the OP had specifically mentioned the names of the hotels claiming them to be containing three star hotel facilities. OP had also furnished the affidavit to this effect.
9.     It is pertinent to note here the contents of the reply and the evidence led by the OP in the form of affidavit was not rebutted by the complainant by way of filing any rejoinder and rebuttal evidence. The learned counsel for the complainant herself stated on 14.2.2020 no rejoinder and rebuttal evidence was to be filed meaning thereby the line of defence and the facts detailed in the written statement on point of hotels being three star and the agreed facilities were provided remains unrebutted on record as neither rejoinder was filed nor any rebuttal evidence was led.
10.     The crux of the pleadings and the evidence led shows the worthy parents of the complainant had availed of the services and according to the complainant the services were deficient even then the same were availed. The complainant in spite of availing services is claiming refund of the full amount of Rs.60,000/- to show as if the tour undertaken by his parents was to be at the expense or say at the cost of the OP.  We are of the firm opinion, complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the OP.
11.     In view of above discussion, we find no merit in present consumer complaint. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
11/03/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President