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
- OYO Rooms,
Rep. by General Manager,
Corporate Office, Sector No.49,
Delhi – 55.
- 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.
- XGDR 1406
- XBSM 2563
- JLHN 4913 and
- 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:
- Whether the complainant could be able to prove the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the damages and refund of the booking amount?
- 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