Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/259/2021

Rakesh Obra - Complainant(s)

Versus

OYO Rooms - Opp.Party(s)

in person

10 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint Case No. : 259 of 2021

                                                                   Date of Institution    : 31.12.2021

                                                                   Date of decision:      : 10.07.2024

 

Rakesh Obra, Advocate, District Court Complex, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

 

OYOROOMS, Corporate Office at 9^th Floor,Spaze Palazo, Sector-69, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 through its General Manager.

...Opposite party.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:        Complainant in person.

Sh. Rohit Khanna, Advocate for OP.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

 

1.                 Brief facts of this complaint are that on 17.12.2019, complainant was travelling from Delhi to Bhiwani by train but due to some fault in the train, he had to stay at Rohtak and for this purpose, complainant got booked a room in Red Apple Hotel online vide booking-ID  LEZF3471.  It is stated that when he went to the hotel for check-in at about 11:00 p.m., he found the hotel closed then called at the phone numbers of the hotel as well as on contact number of OP but none of them responded. In that situation, complainant with the help of police find out one Hotel Amit for night stay and paid Rs.1320/-.  Complainant has alleged that it was very cold night and he suffered lot of mental agony, physical harassment and monetary loss just because of irresponsible and unprofessional act and conduct of the OP. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP for compensation but of no avail.  So, legal notice dated 16.01.2020 was served upon OP but it was not replied.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment to him. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, cause of action and deficiency in service. On merits, it is submitted that  complainant made a booking through OYO for Hotel Red Apple (Now Hotel Bulbul), Rohtak for a period 17.12.2019 to 18.12.2019 in Rs.484/- and opted for the payment option ‘Pay at Hotel’.  No refund was applicable to complainant since payment was not made.  It is denied that complainant paid Rs.1320/-  at Hotel Amit as alleged. It is admitted by the OP that complainant contacted their Customer Care team and raised issue that hotel was closed.  Customer Care tried to contact the Hotel Red Apple but could not contact. So, complainant was advised to go to Dev Guest House but he refused for the same at the instance that he himself will search any hotel.  It is stated that complainant again contacted the OP that he had to pay Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/-  in the other booked hotel. Upon which, OP assured that the extra amount will be refunded to him on providing of the bill but he did not provided any bill till 06.01.2020. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                  In evidence of complainant, documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3 were tendered and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, Ld. counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Ricky Sharma, authorized representative of Op as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Ex. OP-1 to Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.                 From the documents placed on record from OP side, it is clear that the complainant had booked the alleged hotel through the OP and that the hotel is connected with the OP as their business contract.  It is also proved on record that at the time of check-in, in the hotel, by complainant, it was closed.  It is also admitted by OP that the rate of the room rent of the alleged hotel was Rs.484/- whereas as per bill Ex. C-1 issued by Hotel Amit, complainant had to pay Rs.1320/- on the night of 17.12.2019/18.12.2019.  

7.                 After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the entire record, we are of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and its allied hotel when a room for a particular time has been booked for complainant then it should have provided to him especially during the night time. But in the present case, the hotel premises was closed.  Hence, the complaint is allowed with the observations that by such act & conduct of OP, complainant must have suffered mental agony, physical harassment and monetary loss for which he is entitled to be compensated. As such, the OP is directed to comply with the following directions within forty days from the communication of this order:-

(i)       To refund a sum of Rs.836/- to the complainant, which incur by complainant in excess as hotel room rent, alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.

(ii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen thousand) on account of compensation for harassment including litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the aforementioned awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 10.07.2024.

 

                              (Shashi Kiran Panwar)              (Saroj Bala Bohra)       

                                                   Member                 Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani.