Haryana

Kaithal

38/21

Ishwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

OYO Rooms - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajesh Kapro

23 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

                                                               Complaint Case No. 38 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:   23.02.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:      23.02.2024.

Ishwar Singh s/o Shri Jagdish, aged 41 years, r/o village Badsikri Kalan, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

1. OYO Rooms, through its CEO Ritesh Aggarwal, 3^rd Floor, Orchid Center, Sector-53, Golf Course Road, village Haiderpur Viran, Gurugram-122002.

Corporate Office at Ground Floor-001, Mauryansh Elanza, Shyamal Cross Road, Nr. Parekh Hospital, Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

2. Hotel Shimla Hills International, situated at NH-22, near PWD Circuit House, Theog, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, through its Authorized Signatory/Manager/Owner.  

...Opposite Parties.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

Present:       Shri Rajesh Kapro, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT:

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he is Government teacher by profession. That OP No.1 provides online rooms to the visitors or tourists throughout India. That on 05.06.2019, he had booked two rooms for 5 adults with OP No.2 through OP No.1 online through his mobile No.9992409695 during the summer vacations and the payment of Rs.3059/- was agreed to be paid by him at Hotel reception. That the said booking was confirmed by the company through its SMS service on his registered mobile vide Booking No.DGHE0451. That he had arrived at OP No.2 hotel on fixed time and asked for booked rooms, but the management of OP No.2 hotel refused to entertain him and his family members. That OP No.2 told him that they had no concern with OP No.1 and refused to take the payment for the two online booked rooms. That he also made call on customer care of OP No.1 and requested to provide accommodation, but all in vain. That he and his family members booked to other rooms in another hotel on higher rates and paid Rs.3800/- to that hotel. The above act of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OP No.1 appeared through counsel, whereas, no one appeared on behalf of OP No.2, before this Commission, on the date fixed i.e. 31.03.2021, despite receipt of notice, from this Commission, and was proceeded against ex-parte, by this Commission, on that date.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement stating therein that OHHPL provides a website and mobile App where customers can search hotels and homes across the country and book rooms online. OHHPL does not own or operate these hotels themselves. OHHPL enters into a Marketing and Operational Consultancy Agreement (MOCA) with owner of these hotels. The complainant made a booking as per details mentioned below:

                   That OP No.2 denied check in to the complainant. Moreover, as per complainant he approached OP No.1 through email vide email address oyorooms@gmail.com, however, the said email in no manner whatsoever pertains to OP No.1 and is not the original customer care email address. The official email ID of OP No.1 is guestsupport.na@oyorooms.com, therefore, OP No.1 is no where liable for any act done by OP No.2 or complainant himself. It is further submitted that OP No.1 is still ready to resolve the issue of complainant and is ready to refund the prepaid booking amount which shows the bonafide intention of OP No.1, only if the complainant would share his bank details with OP No.1, hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost in favour of OP No.1.                 

5.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5.

6.                On the other hand, OP No.1, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 05.06.2019, the complainant had booked two rooms for 5 adults with OP No.2 through OP No.1 online during the summer vacations and the payment of Rs.3059/- was agreed to be paid by the complainant at Hotel reception. He further argued that the said booking was confirmed by the company through its SMS service on the registered mobile of complainant. He further argued that the complainant had arrived at OP No.2 hotel on fixed time and asked for booked rooms, but the management of OP No.2 hotel refused to entertain him and his family members and told that they had no concern with OP No.1 and refused to take the payment for the two online booked rooms. He further argued that the complainant also made call on customer care of OP No.1 and requested to provide accommodation, but all in vain. He further argued that the complainant and his family members booked to other rooms in another hotel on higher rates and paid Rs.3800/- to that hotel. He further argued that the above act of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that, as per complainant he approached OP No.1 through email vide email address oyorooms@gmail.com, however, the said email in no manner whatsoever pertains to OP No.1 and is not the original customer care email address and the official email ID of OP No.1 is guestsupport.na@oyorooms.com, therefore, OP No.1 is no where liable for any act done by OP No.2 or complainant himself. It is further argued that OP No.1 is still ready to resolve the issue of complainant and is ready to refund the prepaid booking amount which shows the bonafide intention of OP No.1, only if the complainant would share his bank details with OP No.1, hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost in favour of OP No.1.         

10.              From email dated 05.06.2019, it is evident that the complainant booked two rooms, during the summer vacations i.e. from 06.06.2019 to 07.06.2019, online from OP No.1 and the same was confirmed in the OP No.2 hotel vide Booking No.DGHE0451 with total payment of Rs.3059/- to be paid at OP No.2 Hotel. The complainant also received SMS in this regard from OP No.1 Annexure C-2 & C-3.

11.              The grievance of the complainant is that when he reached at OP No.2 hotel on fixed time and asked for booked rooms, then the management of OP No.2 hotel refused to provide the rooms with the assertions that they had no concern with OP No.1. In this regard, the complainant written email to OP No.1 on email address oyoroom@gmail.com, but all in vain. Complainant further alleged that he booked rooms in another hotel on higher rates and paid Rs.3800/- to that hotel, but it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence in this regard on the case file.

12.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for OP No.1 has submitted that OP No.1 had not received any email from the complainant on the ground that email ID it is crystal clear that OP No.1 has himself admitted his fault/mistake, of being not providing the rooms, to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  

13.              Now coming on the responsibility of OP No.2 regarding the matter in question. From booking confirmation Annexure C-1, it is evident that the complainant booked two rooms for summer vacations online in the OP No.2 hotel through OP No.1, which was later on confirmed by OP No.1, but as per complainant, when he went at OP No.2 hotel, on fixed time and asked for booked rooms, then OP No.2 hotel refused to provide the rooms, by saying that they had no concern with OP No.1, but it is pertinent to mention here that OP No.2 failed to appear before this Commission, despite receipt of notice from this Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, this Commission has no other option, except to believe the version of the complainant.

14.              So, keeping view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant got booked two rooms for summer vacations online, with OP No.2 hotel, through OP No.1, but when the complainant reached at OP No.2 hotel on the fixed time and asked for rooms, then OP No.2 refused to provide the same, on flimsy grounds, due to which, the complainant might have faced great physical harassment as well as mental agony, at the last moment and left with no other option except to book rooms in another hotel. The above act and conduct of both the Ops, which not only amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part, but also unfair trade practice on their part. For, his above act, both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to be penalized by awarding compensation amount with litigation expenses, in favour of the complainant. Hence, this Commission is of the firm view, in case, both the OPs are ordered to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs.15,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet.

15.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs, jointly and severally, to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation amount + Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, to the complainant. Both the OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

16.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.        

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:23.02.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.