Date of filing:30.10.2019

                                                              Date of Disposal:29.11.2022

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1684/2019

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Sathish Kumar P,

S/o Pandurangan K,

No.21, 7^th ‘B’ Cross,

Aralimara Street,

Subannapalya, M.S.Nagar Post,

Bangalore-560 033.……COMPLAINANT

Rep by Sri.Ganapathi.S.Shastri, Advocates.

OYO ROOMS,

Rep by Ritesh Agarwal,

Founder and CEO,

OYO Rooms, 9^th Floor,

Spaze Palazo,

Sector 69, Gurugram,

Haryana:122 001.……OPPOSITE PARTY-1

Rep by Sri.Thahakaleel KA, Advocate.

Rep by Sanjay Bhasin,

Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer,

Goibibo, 19^th Floor,

Tower A, B and C,

Epitome Building No.5,

DLF Phase 3, Sector 24,

Haryana-122 002. ……OPPOSITE PARTY-2

Rep by Sri.Bharath S. Advocate.

*****

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards mental agony undergone and for a direction to opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards shock and verbal abuse and such other reliefs as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. It is not in dispute that the complainant had booked a lodge/room on 10.09.2019 through opposite party no.2 for the period from 14.09.2019 to 16.09.2019 and it was assured by opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.1 provides the lodge/rooms at Portblair City in Andaman.  Further, it is not in dispute that the opposite party no.2 had confirmed booking of hotel OYO Shine View belongs to opposite party no.1 and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.789/- to opposite party no.2.  Further, it is not in dispute that on 14.09.2019 the complainant left Bengaluru and reached Portblair City in Andaman. The complainant obtained a room in hotel Bijaya, wherein he had stayed at there.  Further, it is not in dispute that the opposite party no.1 denied the room on the ground that it has informed to opposite party no.2 that the guest of OYO rooms shall not be entertained after 3^rd August-2019.  It is not in dispute that the complainant got refunded of booking amount on 19.09.2019 from opposite party no.2 of Rs.789/- and Rs.526/- go cash plus refunded for future booking through opposite party no.1 platform. 

3. It is the further case of the complainant that he was new to Portblair, he was knowing only Kannada, Telugu, Tamil and English and he merely had come to Portblair to build career and to write an examination.  Further, since the complainant got verbal abuses from hotel shine view staff property of opposite party no.1, the complainant was forced to call local police for help and the police cared and opposite party no.1 people had argued with them but the opposite party no.1 did not provide accommodation.  Further, the opposite party no.1 denied accommodation stating that he had withdrawn lease from OYO rooms on 3^rd August 2019.

4. It is the further case of the opposite party no.1 that the complainant had suppressed the material facts.  Further, opposite party no.1 is one of the platform in the hospitality industries which operate its platform on the name and style of “OYO Rooms”.  Hence, the role of the opposite party no.1 is only limited to the extent of arranging and the booking through its platform and the rest of the operational liability if any is of the owner of the said Hotel/Guest House. Further, the complainant never paid for the hotel booking and the amount was supposed to be paid at hotel.

5. It is the further case of opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.2 is engaged in the business of e-commerce travel organiser by providing an online platform wherein various service providers offer their services.  Further, the opposite party no.2 offers an online platform to book travel tickets, accommodation, holiday packages etc., from amongst the various service providers who are registered with them.  Further, OYO (opposite party no.1) hotel is one such service provider who offers its services through the online platform provided by the opposite party no.2.  Further, the hotel accommodation was booked by the complainant in a hotel which has a tie up with OYO Hotels which is a service provider who has registered with opposite party no.2.  Further, the opposite party no.2 is an only intermediary between the end users such as the complainant and the service providers such as OYO Hotels.  Further, the opposite party no.1 had given the complainant a written declaration that he has withdrawn the lease from OYO rooms on 03.08.2019 and had cancelled the policy booking terms in room booking service.   Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.2 and prays to dismiss the complaint. 

6. To prove the case, the complainant no.1 (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P5 documents.   The authorized representative of opposite party no.1 and Manager-Legal of opposite party no.2 have filed affidavits in the form of their evidence in chief and had produced documents in support of their case.

7. Counsels for opposite party no.1 & 2 have filed written arguments.  

       8. On perusal of the pleadings and documents, the points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?

 ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint ?

 iii) What order ?

    9.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative  

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

  10. POINT NO.1:- The complainant No.1(PW1) and the authorized representative of opposite party no.1 and Manager-Legal of opposite party no.2 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.  To prove the travel made to Port Blair, apart from oral evidence and admission made by the opposite party, the complainant has produced Ex.P3 Air ticket and to prove that he had stayed at hotel Bijaya in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, he has produced receipt for having paid to hotel Bijaya a sum of Rs.1,200/- advance payment for room booking for 2 nights.  Ex.P1 is the hotel confirmation booking issued by opposite party no.2.  Further, the opposite party no.2 admits the Ex.P5 declaration given by Hotel Shine View at Portblair in Andaman and Nicobar Islands dt.16.09.2019. In which it is stated that the owner of the said hotel had requested the Team OYO Rooms to cancel the policy booking terms as the room booking service into his hotel was till 3^rd August 2019 only.  Further, the owner of the above said hotel had already informed the OYO agent (opposite party no.1) of Portblair for the cancellation of the terms of hotel Shine View with the OYO-Rooms.  None had disputed EX.P5 declaration.  In view of EX.P5, we feel the opposite party no.2 ought not to have booked the hotel with opposite party no.1 as per Ex.P1 of OYO 43883 Shine View.  Hence, the act of opposite party no.2 amounts to “unfair trade practice” within the meaning of Section-2(r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the opposite party no.2 did not provide the service as assured, thereby, it amounts to “deficiency of service” within the meaning of Section-2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence, we answer point No.1 in affirmative.

11.POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from opposite party no.2 towards compensation for deficiency of service.  Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 had returned the booking amount paid by the complainant.  According to PW1, he went to Portblair to appear for competitive examination and because of the denial of hotel accommodation at there, the complainant was put to mental agony and tension and find very difficult to get the alternative accommodation.  Further, he appeared for the examination to the post of Accountant and it has huge scope in departments of Central Government and State Government and because of opposite party the complainant had lost the opportunities.  Further, the complainant had lodged police complaint against the staff of Hotel Shine View and the opposite party no.2 had confirmed through voucher vide EXP2 that the opposite party no.2 had booked hotel belongs to opposite party no.1 for the period from 14.09.2019 to 16.09.2019.  Hence, we feel the complainant was put to severe mental agony, pain and suffering and he has suffered a lot because of inconvenience.  Further, according to PW1, it was a new place to him and he was not acquainted with the knowledge at there.  Hence, we feel the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.  The complainant also claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards mental agony sustained from opposite party no.1.  It is the contention of opposite party no.1 that as per the terms and conditions of OYO rooms the payment to be paid to the owner of the hotel.  Hence, since the opposite party no.1 did not accommodate room to the complainant the opposite party no.1 is not a liable for any compensation to be paid to the complainant.  Admittedly, the complainant did not pay any amount to opposite party no.1 and there is no assurance directly or indirectly by the opposite party no.1 for the accommodation of the complainant and to stay in a hotel/room belongs to opposite party no.1.  Hence, we feel the complainant is not entitled for any amount from the opposite party no.1.  Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative. 

12. POINT NO.3:-  In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

Complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party no.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony sustained and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.  In total the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.45,000/-. 

The opposite party No.2 shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite party No.2 fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.45,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 29^th day of November, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)  (RAJU K.S)    (SHIVARAMA, K)    

MEMBER MEMBERPRESIDENT

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainantss side:

Sri.Sathish Kuamr P, the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainants side:

1. Original of Hotel confirmation Voucher. 
2. Receipt.
3. Booking confirmation receipt.
4. Copy of complaint to police.
5. Statement of opposite party no.1.

 Witness examined for the opposite party side:

          Sri.Shreya Agrawal, Authorized Representative of opposite party no.1 has filed his affidavit.

Smt.Rohini R, Manager Legal of opposite party no.2 has filed her affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

1. Letter of authorization.

2. User Agreement B/W User and IBIBO Group.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•