| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 465 of 21.11.2019 Decided on: 6.1.2023 Raman Kumar Soni S/o R.P.Soni, # 1326, Phase 3B2, Mohali-160059. …………...Complainant Versus OYO Address 1:170-171, Dakshin Marg, Sub.City Center, Sector 34B, Sector 34, Chandigarh, 160022. OYO Address 2: 9th floor, SPAZE PALAZO, SECTOR 69, GURUGRAM, HARYANA 122001. …………Opposite Parties. Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member ARGUED BY Sh.Raman Kumar, complainant in person Sh.J.S.Sandhu,counsel for OP. ORDER S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT - The instant complaint is filed by Raman Kumar Soni S/o R.P.Soni (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against OYO (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
- It is averred that on 18, October, complainant booked a room in OYO designated property, Hotel Bombay Residency, 54, St. No.7, Heera Bagh,Rajpura Road, Patiala by a telephonic call to OYO customer care number01246201616 on 18 October and 19 and he was confirmed room booking @ Rs.520/- towards tariff and advised to go to hotel any time and check in as the check in time had already commenced from 12noon on 18 October,2019 and was advised to pay this amount of Rs.520/- at the time of check in at the hotel. It is further averred that the complainant also received message on whatsapp on 18th October 2019 at 5.03 pm stating that his booking id is ROZG4395 and he will further get a discount of 4% while making payment of Rs.520/- towards tariff.
- It is further averred that when the complainant reached hotel and asked for check in with reference of the booking, complainant was refused check in despite advance booking due to low tariff and was advised to talk to OYO. Complainant made calls to OYO but of no use.It is averred that on the advice of the receptionist complainant was forced to hire the same room @ Rs.900/-. There is thus unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Consequently, prayer, has thus, been made for the acceptance of the complaint.
- Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed the written reply taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that provided rates are of the hotel which are flexible in nature and the workingof Oyo is to confirm the booking as its nature of work. No prepaid amount was paid by the complainant as it was just a forcible booking by the complainant with a malafide intention.It isfurther submitted that whenever the complainant called the OPs for any issues, the same was duly rectified and resolved . It is further submitted that due to some issues on the part of hotel itself, the complainant faced some issued in its booking. However, as a good will gesture OP No.2 rearranged the particular stay for the complainant and requested him for shifting the booking to some nearby hotel but the complainant did not agree for the same.Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complainant, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In order to prove his case complainant furnished his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of whatsapp message regarding booking,Ex.C1, copy of whatsapp message regarding confirmation of booking,Ex.C2, copy of whatsapp message regarding payment instructions, Ex.C3,Ex.C4 copy of whatsapp message regarding booking confirmation, copy of whatsapp message regarding information to OYO regarding denial ,Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
- In rebuttal, the OPs through their counsel have tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OPA of Shreya Aggarwal alongwith documents,Ex.OP1 copy of letter of authority,Ex.OP2 copy of general terms and conditions,Ex.OP3 copy of terms and conditions and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the complainant, ld. counsel for OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The complainant and ld. counsel for the OPs have argued their case on the basis of their pleadings and evidence adduced on record.
- On perusal of the record, it transpires that the complainant had booked a room in a hotel vide Ex.C1 through the OPs who are in the business of Hospitality Industries under the name of OYO Rooms and execute an arrangement with various hotels/guests houses throughout India. The booking was confirmed vide Exs.C3 &C4.However, when the complainant reached the hotel so booked through OPs, the booking was not honoured.
- As per the general terms and conditions,Ex.OP2 relied upon by the OPs, the complainant could have checked in against the said booking at any time till the reservation was valid i.e. from 12:00 noon onwards on the date of checking as per the cancellation policy. Further the booking was never cancelled by the OPs and was valid when the complainant reached the hotel. Moreover, the distress calls made by the complainant after the refusal of the booking were not attended to by the OPs which is Ex.C5 leading to mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
- It is pertinent to mention here that if any customer gets the room booked through any service provider then it is the bounded duty of the service provider to ensure that the same is provided to the complainant/consumer smoothly without any harassment but it is not so in the present complaint.
- In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
- The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
-
-
G.S.Nagi S.K.AGGARWAL Member President | |
