Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/6

Dr.Kulwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oyo Rooms - Opp.Party(s)

Lakhvir Singh Adv.

18 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 6 dated 02.01.2018.                                                  Date of decision: 18.11.2021.

 

Dr. Kulwant Singh aged 52 years son of S. Teja Singh, resident of House No.1854, Street No.2, Block-A, Guru Nanak Colony, Backside Morado, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                         ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. OYO Rooms, 325, Space Technical Park, Tower B, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, India, through its Director/M.D.
2. OYO, 9^th Floor, Space Plaza, Sector 69, Guru Gram (Gurgaon, Haryana) through its Officer Incharge.                                                                                                                                          …..Opposite parties                

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Lakhvir Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that the complainant along with his fellow doctors intended to visit Mallital during summer vacation for which the complainant booked four rooms in Hotel Flatties 154, Mall Road, Mallital (Nainital) from the website of the OP on 07.06.2017. Dr. Sukhmander Singh was also a member of the party. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.42,200/- for the booking of four rooms from his bank account. As per the booking which was confirmed by the OPs, the complainant and his friends were to check-in on 10.06.2017 afternoon and check-out on 13.06.2017 at about 11 AM. The complainant duly received the confirmation of the booking through a whatsapp message on his mobile No.81469-00444. The complainant along with his family and the friends reached the concerned hotel at Mallital (Nainital) at about 08.00 PM and contacted the hotel staff after showing them the booking confirmation whatsapp message, but the hotel staff flatly refused to acknowledge any booking and told the complainant that they have no such confirmation regarding the room booking. Confronted with the situation, the complainant contacted the OPs and complained regard the non-availability of the rooms at the booked hotel, but the OPs refused to render any help in the given circumstances with the result that the complainant and his family and friends who were accompanying him, had to face a lot of inconvenience, harassment and humiliation. As a result, the complainant had to stay at another hotel after paying much high rate/tariff. When the complainant requested the OP for refund of the booking amount, the latter only refunded a sum of Rs.14,494/-. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 19.09.2017 through his counsel Sh. Lakhvir Singh, Advocate but to no avail. Hence the complaint whereby the request has been made that the OPs be directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.25,506/-along with compensation of Rs.60,000/-.   

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and is an abuse of process of law. According the OPs, on 07.06.2007, the complainant booked four rooms for four persons through platform of the OPs using his account and mobile number of his friend Mr. Sukhmander Singh in Nainital. The check-in date was 10.06.2017 and check-out date as 13.06.2017. The complainant paid Rs.42,200/- for the booking which was confirmed through SMS by the OPs. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not provided any documentary proof or any letter/declaration of Sukhmander Singh for filing the present complaint. According to the OPs, the booking was only for four persons instead of four families or 16 persons, as alleged by the complainant. Even in the confirmation message, it was specifically mentioned that the booking of four rooms was for four numbers of guests. Thus, it was crystal clear that the booking was made for four guests only. Accordingly, the complainant was refused room accommodation for four families aggregating to 16 persons. Due to peak season, there was no refund policy applicable, but as a goodwill gesture, the OPs refunded one night tariff. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA and affidavit Ex. CB of Sh. Sukhmandeep Singh @ Sukh along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for OPs submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Akshat Sharma, authorized representative of OPs and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

6.                It has been vehemently agitated by the counsel for the OPs that there is no lapse and deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. According to the counsel for the OPs, the confirmation of booking was only for the stay of four guests and not for 16 persons as claimed by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant and his family members/friends were not entitled for the stay of 16 persons in the concerned hotel for a period of 3 days and they were rightly not entertained by the staff of the concerned hotel. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that despite all this, the OPs by way of a goodwill gesture have refunded an amount of Rs.14,494/- out of booked amount of Rs.42,200/-.

7.                We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions raised by the counsel for the OPs, but have found the same to be specious and not tenable. No doubt in the whatsapp message sent by the OPs, it is mentioned that the booking has been made in respect of four rooms from 10.06.2017 to 13.06.2017 for four guests, but it is totally unthinkable that there could be a restriction of stay of just one person in one room. It is a matter of common knowledge and usual practice that one room is meant for stay of a minimum 2 persons. In the event of stay of more than 2 persons is required especially in the case of kids accompanying the couple/parents, the hotel usually charges extra for an extra bed for the additional person/child staying in the room. Therefore, it is quite arduous to believe and hold that the four rooms were booked by the OPs for the stay of just four persons i.e. one person per room. In addition to this, surprisingly, it has not been clarified in the whatsapp message Ex. C6 sent by the Ops regarding the conformation of the booking. Rather in our considered view, the message can be interpreted to mean that apart from two persons stay in a room, which is also a usual practice across the world, one guest could also be entertained on payment of additional charges on account of extra bedding etc. Therefore, the denial of the rooms duly booked and prepaid on account of the fact that the complainant was not entitled for stay in the hotel more than one person per room cannot be said to be justified by any standards. Therefore, it has to be held that there has been an acute deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which has resulted in inconvenience, embarrassment and humiliation to the complainant and his family and friends accompanying him who despite having a prepaid booking were not entertained in the hotel at the given time and made to fend for themselves at the night time and that too at a hill station when it was a peak time of summer vacation during which the hotels are usually  fully occupied and it is quite difficult to arrange for a stay in the hotel at the odd or unusually late night hours. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are made to refund the amount of Rs.25,506/- and are further made to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall refund the balance amount of Rs.25,506/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The OPs shall further pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation as well as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                         (Jaswinder Singh)                    (K.K. Kareer)                                                     Member                                   President

 

Announced in Open Commission                                            Dated:18.11.2021

Gobind Ram.