STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                         U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                            (Additional Bench)

Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory Mr. Puneet Chawla S/o Sh.S.B.Chawla, aged about 40 years, having its Head office at19th Floor, tower A, B and C, Epitome Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, Phase-II, Gurugram 122002.

                                                                                                        …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

1. Parvez Chugh S/o Sh.Manohar Lal Chugh, resident of H.No.1077, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.
2. A Seventeen Hotel, (also known as Oyo 707 A-17), near Masjid, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024 through its Proprietor Sh.Dinesh Marwaha.

                                                                                                       ...Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 15.12.2022 passed by          District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II,U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.48/2019.

BEFORE:          MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                         MR.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Present   :        Sh.Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                         None for respondent No.1

                         S/Sh.Apinder Singh & Devinder Kumar,  Advocates for  respondent                  No.2.

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.12.2022, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/48/2019 and directed the Opposite Parties in the following terms;-

“Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by the OPs No.1 to 3 is proved.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against OPs No.1 to 3 with following directions to refund the booking amount of Rs.2425/- to the complainant and also to pay a compository amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment & agony as well as litigation expenses.

           As it has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs that such kind of unfair trade practice resorted to by the OPs needs to be curbed, thus, an amount of Rs.2 lacs (Two Lakh Only) is being imposed as a penalty upon the OPs.  The OPs No.1 & 2 and OP No.3 are thus directed to deposit an amount of Rs.One Lakh each in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.

          This order shall be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief. ”

  2.    Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/respondent No.1 that  he is a practising Advocate in various courts in Chandigarh as well as New Delhi. Some matters of the complainant were listed   before the  Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi on 11.12.2018 & 12.12.2018. He had booked a room for night stay in a  Three Star Hotel namely Oyo 707 A-17, Near Masjid, Defence Colony, New Delhi- OP No.3/respondent No.2 through OPs No.1 & 2/appellant  for 11.12.2018 by making payment of Rs.2500/-.  The room booking was confirmed by the OPs vide booking confirmation mail Annexure C-1. However, on reaching the Hotel on 11.12.2018 at evening, the Hotel staff denied check-in to the complainant, despite confirmed booking, saying that no room was available in the Hotel for 11th & 12th Dec., 2018.  The proprietor of said Hotel Mr.Dinesh Marwah also gave in writing that though  booking was made in the name of the complainant but the room was not available for stay from 11.12.2018 to 12.12.2018. The handwritten note given in this regard is Annexure C-2.  The complainant then requested to OP No.1/appellant through its call centre to resolve the issue by  providing room in the same hotel or some nearby location. Error on the part of the OPs was duly acknowledged vide mail dated 11.12.2018 and promised that request of the complainant would be resolved within a guaranteed time of one hour.  But the Opposite parties  failed to resolve the issue and did not offer to provide room in any hotel.  Ultimately, the complainant had to travel back to Chandigarh and then come back again to New Delhi in the morning of 12.12.2018 by boarding a bus.   Thereafter, the complainant served upon  OPs legal notice on 17.12.2018  seeking compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by them,  in response to which  OP No.1 offered  refund of double the booking amount and some  non promotional go -cash points, which complainant refused. Thereafter, the complainant received mail from OP No.1 stating therein that they have closed the case for the time being. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission. 

3.                Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 /appellants in their joint  written reply before the Ld. Lower Commission admitted  the factual matrix of the case and  stated that OP No.1 acts as merely a facilitator for booking of the confirmed air tickets/hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers    wherein the answering OPs upon the request received from its customers, forward the same to the concerned Hotel service providers and on receiving the confirmation from the concerned Hotel service providers, the booking ID is generated and confirmed bookings/tickets are shared with the customer.  It was further stated that the answering OPs are not responsible or liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the Hotel and once the confirmed bookings are shared with the customer, the answering OP is discharged from its obligation and duties qua the said booking. It was further  stated that OP No.3 had denied the check-in to the complainant on account of non-availability of the room and not on the ground that answering OPs failed to book the room on his behalf and that answering OPs cannot be made liable on account of default made by the Hotelier i.e. OP NO.3.  It was denied that the complainant had requested for an alternate accommodation with the answering OPs.  It was pleaded that the answering OPs despite having no fault on their part had duly replied the legal notice dated 17.12.2018 and  offered the refund of    double the booking amount along with Rs.2000/- as go cash voucher totaling to Rs.10,000/- which was  rejected by the complainant in order to extort more money from the OPs. Other allegations were denied and it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint were raised and a prayer was made for dismissal   of the complaint.

         OP No.3 did not turn up before the Ld. Lower Commission  despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded ex parte.

4..                On appraisal of the pleadings, and the evidence adduced on record by the parties, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the Complaint of  the  Respondent No.1/ Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.   

5.           Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

6.                       We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.              It is case of the appellant that the Ld.   Lower Commission while allowing the complaint lost sight of the fact that the appellant had already issued confirmed hotel voucher to the customer for which the services of the appellant were availed. However, check-in was denied by respondent No.2 due to unavailability of room against the confirmed booking. Further respondent No.1/complainant was  well aware of the terms and conditions of the appellant which clearly states that in case of any cancellation or rescheduling or service related issue by the concerned hotel/hospitality service provider, the concerned service provider shall refund or reschedule the tickets or bookings in lieu of charges duly agreed upon at the time of making the bookings. It is further contended that  the Ld. Lower Commission has erred in presuming that the appellant merely by offering refund alongwith a go cash voucher had accepted its fault and deficiency, whereas refund was offered as per the terms and conditions agreed to between the appellant the respondent/complainant. Further the appellant had provided due assistance to respondent No.1 and immediately offered to refund the complete booking amount on 11.12.2018. It is further stated that the appellant was an ‘intermediary’ as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act,2002. Further in accordance with the said IT Act, the appellant merely receives, stores or transmits information on behalf of the concerned Users and the concerned end service provider, including that of respondent No.2 and with respect to such temporarily stored information, provides services of an online travel agency. Further as per Section 79 of the IT Act an intermediary shall not be held liable for any third-party information or data, uploaded to its online platform by any third party, thus, the appellant is duly covered under the definition of ‘intermediary’ and as such it is not liable for information, including the availability of rooms or their prices, as uploaded by respondent No.2. It was further contended that even if the allegation in the complaint is taken to be correct, this was at best the case of human/technical error that had occurred on the part of respondent No.2, and in no way, it is the case where the extraordinary exemplary cost of Rs.2 Lakhs was to be leviable. The appellant had in good faith already offered to refund of double the amount of the hotel booking plus additional go cash vouchers of Rs.3000/-, therefore levying the exemplary cost of Rs.2 Lakhs was completely illegal.

 8.                      On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of respondent No.2 that prior to the booking of room by respondent No.1/complainant through the appellant, business tie up of respondent No.2 had been come to an end with Ibibo Pvt. Ltd. Further Oyo 707 had taken over the business with A-Seventeen Hotel, prior to confirmation of the booking and the appellant never confirmed  availability of room from respondent No.2 before confirmation of booking for respondent No.1/complainant, as such, there was no deficiency on the part of respondent No.2. However, to avoid multiple litigation, respondent No.2 complied with the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Lower Commission and deposited its part of the amount of Rs.1.00 Lakhs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account on 1.3.2023 and paid a sum of Rs.2425/- to the complainant as compensation awarded by the Ld. Lower Commission.  It was further contended that deficiency in service was entirely on the part of the appellant as it failed to arrange any other room in any other hotel of nearby location and also failed to resolve the issue and showed its inability to resolve the promised resolution within one hour as assured by it.

  9.                In his written arguments, it is contended on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant that the OPs not only rendered deficient service towards the respondent No.1/complainant but have also indulged into unfair trade practice, which not only effected respondent No.1/complainant in particular but is presumed to have an impact on consumers at large. Booking of room by the respondent No.1/complainant  through the appellant portal got confirmed for his stay at the Hotel(respondent No.2)  but the respondent No.1 was not given any room in the hotel despite confirmed booking. Such kind of mental/physical harassment could not be compensated in terms of money but certainly in order to mitigate the suffering not only a reasonable amount of compensation is required to be imposed but also this practice needs to be curbed, where after giving confirmation of booking, the accommodation/service is denied at the last moment and the consumer is taken by surprise.  It hardly effects to the parties like the appellant who used to  book the respective venue while sitting in their respective offices with no heed to give the proper follow up in order to ensure the complete services being provided. It was contended that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite just and reasonable and does not call for any interference as the appellant and respondent No.2 are equally liable for this kind of unfair trade practice as resorted to by them and also for their deficient services. 

10.            There is no denying the fact that booking of the respondent No.1/complainant through the portal of the appellant was got confirmed for his stay at the hotel- respondent No.2  vide Annexure C-1 but despite confirmed booking, accommodation was not provided as admitted by Dinesh Marwah, proprietor of respondent No.2 vide Annexure C-2. Hotelier error was also acknowledged by the appellant vide mail Annexure C-3.  The appellant tried to resolve the issue but it could not provide accommodation and offered to compensate  respondent No.1 vide mail Annexure C-4 but the same was not accepted probably for the reason that the offer so made was not in consonance with the harassment suffered by him due to non-providing of accommodation at the last moment.  The appellant is trying to shift the entire blame on respondent No.2 as despite confirmed booking, it denied to provide room to respondent No.1, whereas according to respondent No.2, it was the appellant who failed to resolve the issue by providing another  room  in nearby location by making alternative arrangement.  But still the facts remains that respondent No.1 suffered harassment and mental agony on the part of the appellant as well as respondent No.2.  As regards quantum of compensation awarded by the Ld Lower Commission, the same appears be quite just, reasonable and  in consonance with the sufferance undergone by respondent No.1.  As regards the amount of penalty imposed by the Ld. Lower Commission the same also appears to be quite justified as the Ld Lower Commission rightly observed that to curb such kind of unfair trade practice resorted to by the appellant as well as respondent No.2, penalty of Rs.2 Lakhs requires be imposed to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account. Respondent No.2/OP No.3 has already deposited its part of the amount and remaining amount of Rs.one Lakh is required to be deposited by the appellant/OPs No.1 & 2.

11                  In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view  that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of   evidence and law on the point and does not suffer from illegality and perversity warranting any interference of this Commission.                

12.                     For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

13.                    Misc. application, if any pending, also stands disposed of

14.                    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.