Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/509/2023

AMIT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

STAY VISTA PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

RAKSHAK GUPTA

02 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.

:

CC/509/2023

Date of Institution

:

23.10.2023

Date of Decision   

:

2/04/2024

 

AMIT KUMAR s/o Sh. Pawan Kumar r/o 1575 SECTOR 38-B, CHANDIGARH 160014

 

Versus

 

1. STAY VISTA PRIVATE LIMITED, Surya Mahal 4th Floor, 5 Burjorji Bharucha Marg, Fort, Mumbai, MH 400001 IN.

 

2. The Hideaway Cottage, situated in Village Oal Panchayat Chaamon, PO Ghaighat, Kasauli, Solan, Himachal Pradesh - 173229

 

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :

SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH

PRESIDENT

 

MRS. SURJEET KAUR

MEMBER

 

SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA

MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY

:

Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant

 

:

OPs exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

  1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
  1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that on 22.5.2023 the complainant booked three hotel rooms through online website
  2. OPs  were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 3.1.2024.
  1. In order to prove their case, complainant tendered/proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
  2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
    1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the  complainant that the complainant booked three rooms in the hotel of OP No.2, being managed by OP No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.34718/- as is also evident from Annexure A-1 and OPs confirmed the booking  through mail by claiming that the location of the subject hotel is in Kasauli and after reaching  at the subject hotel, the complainant and other family members found that the subject hotel was not situated at Kasauli rather the same was located near Parwanoo  i.e. far away from the Kasauli, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed and for that purpose the documentary evidence led by the complainant is required to be scanned carefully.
    2. Perusal of Annexure A-1 clearly indicates that  the complainant booked three rooms with check in date 23.5.2023 and check out date as 24.5.2023  and location of the  subject hotel was shown at Kasauli. Annexure A-2 clearly indicates  that the complainant after reaching at the spot found that the approach road to the hotel was very narrow and steep unsuitable for the motor vehicles and even the subject hotel was not found in good condition and also  on finding that  the subject hotel was far away from Kasauli and is located near Parwanoo where  the temperature is altogether higher than Kasauli, immediately sent messages, emails and phone calls to the OPs but the same were not responded by the OPs. Not only this the complainant requested the OPs either to refund the amount or to make alternative arrangement  in some other hotel near Kasauli or Chail and the said request  of the complainant was not accepted by the OPs.    Thereafter the complainant was compelled to send legal notice A-3 which was not replied by the OPs. Thus, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to   amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
  3. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-
  1. to pay ₹34718/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 24.5.2023 till onwards.
  2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
  3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
  1. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
  2. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
  3. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

2/04/2024

mp

 

 

Sd/-

[Pawanjit Singh]

President

 

 

 

Sd/-

 

 

 

[Surjeet Kaur]

Member

 

 

 

Sd/-

 

 

 

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.