Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/76/2020

Rakesh Kumar Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

OYO Rooms - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. N.S.Jagdeva

21 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	76 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	29.01.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	21.07.2022

 

 

 

 

Rakesh Kumar Garg S/o Sh.Tikka Ram, R/o H.No.2414, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  OYO Rooms through its Managing Director, 9^th Floor, Spaze Palazzo, Sector 69, Gurugram, Haryana 122001

2]  Paytm India through its Managing Director, B-121, Sector 5, Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh India.

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  MRS. SURJEET KAUR      PRESIDING MEMBER

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER 

                                                        

 

 

For Complainant :    Sh. N. S. Jagdeva, Advocate

For OP(s)       :    Sh. Puneet Tuli, Adv. for OP No.1.

                     Sh. Puneet kakker, Adv. for OP NO.2.

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant had booked 4 rooms at the Hotel of OP No.1 at Chamunda View and made payment of Rs.7870/-, as settled after discounts, through Paytm (OP No.2) (Ann.C-1). Accordingly, on 28.12.2019, the complainant along with families of his two sisters visited Chamba in Himachal Pradesh and reached the Hotel of OP No.1.  It is stated that the complainant was surprised when the Hotel official told them that they do not have any tie-up with OYO Rooms and as such refused to accommodate them despite having booking and advance payment.  It is also stated that the complainant contacted OYO Room Management, who replied that they can arrange alternate rooms nearby, but still did nothing despite waiting for hours.  Ultimately, the complainant and his family members had to avail rooms on higher amount of Rs.12000/- at Satyam Hotel near Old Bus Stand Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.  It is submitted that there was heavy rush due to holiday season and rooms were not available.  It is also submitted that the complainant and his family members had to suffer harassment as they had to stand in cold for 5/6 hours and the complainant had to cut a sorry figure before his relatives due to refusal by the Hotel.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   

 

2]       The OP No.1 has filed reply stating that the complainant has not proved his allegations by documentary evidence and that Hotel has not been impleaded as a party.  It is denied that Hotel owner refused to provide room to complainant.  It is stated that the complainant did not confirm his arrival or time pertaining to his arrival, which is necessary as per booking policy. All other allegations of the complainant have been denied by OP No.1 and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

         The OP No.2 has also filed reply stating that all the listing of Hotel bookings etc. has been provided by OP No.1 directly and the role of OP No.2 is limited to provide online platform to its customers to book hotel rooms and works as an intermediary only.  It is stated that OP No.2 does not at any point of time, during any transaction between the complainant and OPNo.1, take the ownership of any of the listing, bookings offered by OP No.1.  It is submitted that when the booking request was placed, it was redirected towards OP No.1 and once the order gets fulfilled from the end of OP No.1, the amount collected from customer is transferred to OP No.1.  It is submitted that OP NO.1 is responsible to provide updated information of the bookings to the complainant, failing which OP No.1 ought to be held responsible for non-fulfillment with respect to the booking of the hotel.  It is pleaded that the only contract that subsisted between the complainant and OP No.2 is that of successful booking of the Hotel bookings or refund the amount upon cancellation of the Hotel bookings in the event of failure on the part of OP No.1 to provide the intended hotel booking/service.  It is also pleaded that on receipt of said grievance, the OP No.2 speedily redressed the issue and processed the refund of Rs.1181/- on 30.12.2019 and Rs.6689/- on 19.2.2020 to the complainant. Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service on the part of OP NO.2, it is prayed that the complaint qua answering OP be dismissed.

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs made in their reply.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OPs and have gone through entire documents on record.

 

6]       The record clearly proves that the complainant made booking of Hotel Room at Chamunda View Hotel through OP NO.1/OYO for 28.12.2019 to 29.12.2019 by making payment of Rs.7870/- through OP No.2/Paytm, but still he has been denied the said facility on arriving at Hotel.  The claim of OP No.1, as in reply, that the complainant did not confirm his arrival or time pertaining to his arrival, is false and disapproves from booking receipt Ann.C-1 wherein the check-in & check-out dates are specifically mentioned. It is established that the Opposite Party NO.1 has failed to provide any service despite receipt of good consideration amount from the complainant. The complainant and his family members, who went on outing, having faith on the services of OP No.1, definitely suffer due to its carelessness & deficient act.  Thus, the deficiency in service is clearly made out against Opposite Party No.1.

 

         We are of the opinion that though the booking amount has been refunded to complainant through OP No.2 (Ann.OP-4), but the complainant deserves to be suitably compensated for the harassment and humiliation suffered by him due to gross deficient act & conduct of OP No.1.

 

7]       From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of OP No.1. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against OP NO.1 with direction to pay a compository amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for causing him mental agony, harassment & humiliation due to its gross deficient act, which also includes litigation expenses.

         This order shall be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

8]      The complaint qua OP NO.2 stands dismissed.    

    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. 

Announced                                                     

21^th July, 2022                         

                                                                                Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (B. M. SHARMA)

MEMBER