Telangana

Hyderabad

CC/458/2017

Mr. M.V. Raj Kumar Gabriel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oyo Rooms - Opp.Party(s)

M. Srinivas

19 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM I HYDERABAD
(9th Floor, Chandravihar Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad 500 001)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/458/2017
( Date of Filing : 23 Oct 2017 )
 
1. Mr. M.V. Raj Kumar Gabriel
H.No. B.63, Municipal No. 6.7.10, Bansilalper, secundrabad.
Secundrabad
Telangana
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Oyo Rooms
Rep. by General Managar, Corporate, sector No. 49, Delhi 55
Delhi
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. P. Vijender PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. D.Nirmala MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 19 Jun 2019
Final Order / Judgement

                                                                                      Date of Filing:  23.10.2017

                                                                                        Date of Order:19.06.2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

 

P r e s e n t­

 

HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B.  PRESIDENT.

                      HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., L.L.B., MEMBER

 

 

    ON THIS THE WEDNESDAY   THE 19th   DAY OF JUNE, 2019

 

 

C.C.No.458 /2017

 

 

Between

 

Mr.M.V.Raj Kumar Gabriel,

S/o.Late Mr.M.P.Gariel,  

Aged about 42 Years, Occ: Advocate,

R/o. H.No.  B-63, Municipal No.6-7-210,

Bansilalpet, Secunderabad.                                      ……Complainant

 

And

 

  1. OYO Rooms,

Rep. by General Manager,

Corporate Office, Sector No.49,

Delhi – 55.

 

  1. OYO Rooms,

Rep.by Manager,

Head Quarters, 325 Space Tech Part Tower,

B Sohna Road, Gurgaon,

Haryana – 122 001.                                              ….Opposite Parties

 

 

 

Counsel for the complainants                   :  Sri M.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite Party                :       -               

   

O R D E R

 

(By Sri.  P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)

 

1)     1)            This complaint  has been   preferred under Section 12 of Consumer

Protection . Act,  1986  alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite     parties .  Hence a direction  to the opposite parties    to award  a sum of Rs.50,.000/- .  which  includes  refund of the booking amount of Rs.8,091/- and costs of    legal notice  and incidental charges at Rs.5,000/-.

2)   The  brief  facts of the complaint are that complainant is an advocate by profession  and during the vacation  period he is a regular  traveler  and guest of opposite party.    It provides   accommodation  by booking  hotels on line.   For summer vacation  he planned ,  holiday trip with  family   to Darjeeling ,   and Sikkim from 15.5.2017 to 21.5.2017.  He  booked the hotel  through opposite parties  in    Sky line  Lodge – 012 at Siliguri   to check in 15.5.2017 and checked out on  16.5,.2017, the silk Root   residency, Gangtok to check in  on 16.5.2017  and check out   on  18.5.2017, hotel  New Galaxy upper  Pelling  to check in on 18.5.2017 and check out  on 20.5.2017 and lastly  at hotel new Galaxy  upper  Darjeeling to  check in on 20.5.2017  and  check out  on 22.5.2017 and same was confirmed in I Ds.

  1. XGDR 1406
  2. XBSM 2563
  3. JLHN 4913  and
  4. IJWU 9456   respectively. 

             But at the  time  of booking the opposite parties  rooms at  above said referred different places Website clearly  depict the  location  and the places for confirmation  by the customer  so as to enable to see that  booking is made at right place.  The hotels shown through  opposite party at the said locations are  booked  by the complainant  after  bringing of confirmation the places and the prices.  In case of  Pelling  and Darjeeling  opposite party rooms   appears to   shown the hotel New  Galaxy   for both the places  and hence the complainant was under the impression that the places and location of hotel New galaxy is in between  a short travel distance  of  the places.

              The complainant  and his family  reached  Siligiri  and on the above said date and moved  Gangtok  on 16.5.2017 and check in   Silk route residency  and check out on 18.5.2017 and heading  towards Pelling  at about 2.00pm  and he  called the hotel reception to find out  the location.  He surprised  when informed at hotel New Galaxy that the location of  hotel  is at Darjeeling  and not at Pelling  and  expressed  his inability  to help the  complainant to   relocate  him  and his family at Pelling  and  immediately  the  complainant  called the customer   care  of the opposite party and enquired as he was mislead by the opposite party on booking  of hotel at Pelling , but  he too expressed his  inability and  discontinued the phone .   Left with no alternative the complainant  has cancelled his bookings of OYO rooms a Hotel  New Galaxy for 18 and 19th May 2017 and  continued his journey towards Pelling and got booked hotel room in hotel  Panchak ,  West Sikkimn  at a cost of Rs.2,000/-  and after spending  the unexpected  stay  in the said hotel   suffered  inconvenience.    The opposite party  caused deficiency of service in  providing hotel  stay  at  Pelling  and he  moved  at pelling  on 19.5.2017 to  Jorethang and instantly  booked room  in Hotel  Puspanjali, Jorethang Bazar, South Sikkim  at cost of Rs.1300/- and  spent  unpleasant stay  with inconvenience.   Finally he visited   New Galaxy at  Darjeeling  on 20.5.2017 as per the schedule  and  reached  the said hotel.   He expressed his most unexpected unpleasant, painful and bad experience in Pelling  stay  so also at   Jorethang  stay in the hotel.  Thus opposite party  caused the deficiency of service and  mislead at two complete 2  places of  Pelling and Darjeeling.

                        The complainant and  his family experienced  inconvenience and problems on  account of  non-providing  OYO rooms at Pelling  and suffered  great loss  and  mental agony for  entire  holiday  and  the and  compelled to spend extra amount  on booking  of hotel and other incidental charges which are  happened  on account of deficiency of service by opposite party by  not  providing the OYO rooms  at the correct locations and places.  Hence the complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite parties on 6.7.2017 calling upon them to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- which includes   refund of booking amount of Rs.8,094/- paid with ID Nos. JLK 4913 to opposite party managed  to return notice cover.  However    opposite party responded to the grievance sent by the   complainant on line feedback and from time to time corresponded with the complainant through mail assuring that his concern shall be looked in to and  do the needful to the extent possible.  But the opposite party having assured  failed to settle  the  issue and  finally  started  postponing  the issue for  one reason or the other and  ultimately refused to comply the demand .  Hence the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.

3)                                 The opposite party  having received  notice of the  complainant and appears to have engaged an advocate who offered to file vakalat for both the opposite parties on 21.5.2018  but  neither filed the vakalat nor written version.

        4)                            In the enquiry  stage  the complainant  got filed his  evidence affidavit    and   got exhibited 6 documents.   Complainant filed written arguments and made oral submissions also.

        5)            On  consideration  of material on the record the following points have emerged for determination:        

  1. Whether    the complainant  could be  able to prove the deficiency of service  on the part of opposite parties.?
  2. Whether the complainant  is entitled for the damages and refund of the  booking amount?
  3. To what relief?

6)       Point No.1:      The material documents placed on record   by the complainant consists of booking and cancelation of hotel rooms, bills, cash memos office copy of legal notice, returned postal covers and copies of mail correspondence with the opposite parties.  Booking and cancellation of hotel bookings made by the complainant through  opposite party  is  evidenced by Exhibit A1 documents.  Similarly  the bills  and cash memos relating to the period from 19.5.2017  and 20.5.2017 evidences the amount  spent by the complainant for spot booking  after cancellation.  Copy of legal notice  marked  as exhibit A3 narrates the experience of the complainant in the holiday trip and inconvenience caused on account of location of hotel at Pelling   for that there was no reply to the notice from the opposite party.  The Email correspondence, in Exhibit A6  shows opposite party expressed concern for the inconvenience caused to the complainant.  In the Email  of 2nd August, 2017 the opposite party said that it is extremely sorry  for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and promised to look  into the matter .  In the Email dated 4th August 2017 the opposite party  tendered apology  to the  complainant for causing inconvenience.  It  is further  promised to do  needful to the complainant,  In the  other E mail dt.5th August, 2017 the opposite party informed  the complainant that  it has shared the concern of the complainant  with the  concerned  department  and promised  to do the needful to the complainant after  investigation.  It is  in another Email dt, 7th August, 2017 by the opposite party  to the complainant tender apology and that  he promised to look into the matter and  do the needful.  Next Email  is dt. 9th August, 2017 informing the complainant that the concerned team has been working on priority  on the issue.  The next Email  dt.10th August, 2017 expressing the same  as  in the earlier mails.  But nothing  was done to the complainant  even as   on this day.  So this Emails  correspondence  has clearly proved that  opposite party  has  it as admitted  inconvenience  caused to the complainant on account of improper  display of location of the hotel and inconvenience  caused to the complainant  in the process.  This documentary evidence is sufficient to hold that there is any amount of substance in the complainants version  of causing inconvenience   and mental agony for the holiday trip that amounts to deficiency of service.  Accordingly  the point is answered.

7)Point No.2:- In the light of fresh bookings  the complainant was made suffer  and hence  he  is entitled for refund of  booking amount and also damages claimed.  Accordingly the  point is answered

6)                      In the result the complaint is  allowed  directing the opposite parties :

           1)  To  pay  a sum of Rs.50,000/- which includes  refund amount of Rs.8,094/-

           2) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this complaint.

                             Time for compliance is one month  from the date of service of this order.

                       If  the opposite party fails to comply the order  within one month from the date of service of  order  he is   also liable to pay interest at 12% on the damaged amount of Rs.50,000/- from the  date of complaint to the date of payment .    

 

 

  MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

                                           

 

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                   WITNESS EXAMINED

                                                              NIL                                               

 

Exhibits  filed on behalf of the Complainant:

 

Ex.A1 –  Copy of booking & cancellation of hotel booking  

Ex.A2 –  Bills  / Cash Memos dt.19/5/2017 & 20.5.2017

Ex.A3 –  Copy of Legal notice dt.6.7.2017 

Ex.A4 –  Postal receipt

Ex.A5 –Returned postal covers

Ex.A6 – Copies of correspondence through mail.

Exhibits  filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:

Nil

 

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. P. Vijender]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. D.Nirmala]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.