By. Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a consumer complaint filed under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows:- The Complainant made an online booking of one X standard AC Deluxe Room with breakfast from 2nd day of December 2017 to 3rd day of December 2017 at Opposite Party No.2’s Hotel through Opposite Party No.1 as per TRIP ID No.17120262840 and the Complainant paid Rs.3,298/- to the Opposite Parties through net banking from Sulthan Bathery. On the stipulated date and time the Complainant and his friends approached Opposite Party No.2 for occupying the booked room. But Opposite Party No.2 did not provide the offered room to the Complainant saying that there was no booking for the room in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant immediately contacted the Opposite Party No.1 for clarification of the booking, but the Opposite Party No.1 also stated that there was no booking for X standard AC deluxe room for the Complainant. It was highly shocking to the Complainant and it caused heavy inconvenience and mental agony to the Complainant. At last, the Complainant was compelled to occupy another room in Opposite Party No.2’s hotel for a higher rate.
3. The above said acts of the Opposite Parties are deficiency in service and it caused irreparable loss and hardships to the Complainant. The opposite parties are responsible for the same. Therefore, the Complainant approached this Commission submitting this complaint with the following prayers.
(1) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant for the inconvenience caused and also
(2) To direct the opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
4. The Commission registered a case and notices were issued to both the Opposite Parties and versions were filed by both of them. In version the Opposite Party No.1 narrated the following in brief:- Opposite Party No.1 is an online travel company which provides intermediary facilities for booking air tickets and hotel reservations through its online website www.cleartrip.com. The entire booking process is system driven and done online, based on the entries made by the customer/passenger himself. On 2nd December 2017 at 8.24 pm, the Complainant made online room reservation for one room with Hotel Periyar, Kochi for a check in on 2nd December 2017 and check out on 3rd December 2017 for an amount of Rs.3,298/-. The booking was successful and an e-ticket bearing Trip ID No.17120262840 was generated and sent to the email id provided by the Complainant ie, boban.m5@gmail.com. On receipt of booking from the Complainant an automated booking voucher was sent by the Opposite Party No.1 to Hotel Periyar, Kochi. Opposite Party No.1 is not an end service provider. Immediately on receipt of the online booking from the Complainant at 8.24 pm the customer support team of Opposite Party No.1 telephonically contacted the Opposite Party No.2 ie, Hotel Periyar to confirm the booking. The representative of the Hotel telephonically informed the customer support executive of the Opposite Party No.1 that ‘’the Complainant was a walk in customer in the hotel and that the Complainant was already present in the hotel room from 8 pm ie, prior to the booking of the room on the booking platform of the Opposite Party No.1. The Hotelier further informed the Complainant that standard AC rooms were not available and rooms of higher category were available. While the Complainant was waiting in the Hotel lobby, the Complainant browsed the booking platform of the Opposite Party No.1 and found that the rooms were shown as available in the booking platform of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant confronted the same with the hotelier. The hotelier further informed the Complainant that the rooms of the same category are sold out and that the hotelier has not updated the inventory on the booking platform’’. The Opposite Party No.1, being customer centric, decided to honour the booking made by the Complainant and requested the representative of the Opposite Party No.2 to upgrade the Complainant in the higher room category. Accordingly the hotelier provided a Periyar Suite to the Complainant. The room fare of Periyar Suite was higher than that of AC Standard Deluxe Room with breakfast. The Opposite Party No.1 transferred the booking amount of Rs.3,298/- and the additional amount of Rs.500/- towards the upgraded Periyar Suite. The additional amount of Rs.500/- was borne by Opposite Party No.1 despite the fact that the omission to update the hotel inventory on the part of Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.1 submits that as the Complainant has utilised the services of Opposite Party No.2 at the upgraded room the claim of the Complainant does not warrant any consideration. There has been no deficiency of service from Opposite Party No.1. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 prays that in view of the submissions made by Opposite Party No.1, the complaint being totally misconceived, false, frivolous abuse of the process of law and being devoid of any merits, may be dismissed with heavy costs under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, in the interest of justice.
5. The brief narration of the version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 is as follows:
There has been no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. No assurance had been given by Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant as alleged in the complaint regarding X standard AC Deluxe room. No such room was booked by the Complainant as alleged, the Complainant personally came to the hotel asking room. Opposite Party No.2 has provided a suite room of higher rent at a reduced rate on 02.12.2017. He has enjoyed the room and other facilities and stayed in the Hotel comfortably and checked out the room happily expressing gratitude on 03.12.2017. The allegation of the Complainant that he was compelled to occupy another room in the hotel for a higher rate is absolutely false. The specific case of the Complainant is that booking was made by him through Opposite Party No.1 and not directly with the Opposite Party No.2. It is also stated in the complaint that when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 for clarification of the booking, the Opposite Party No.1 stated that any booking was not made for X Standard AC Deluxe Room for the Complainant. The real complaint is regarding the deficiency of service of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has no complaint regarding the room facilities provided to him in the Hotel of Opposite Party No.2. As such Opposite Party No.2 is absolutely an unnecessary party in this case. Hence, the Complainant has no manner of right to make any claim against Opposite Party No.2 and the Opposite Party No.2 has no responsibility or liability to pay any amount to the Complainant. Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.
6. Though versions were filed, Opposite Party No.2 has not appeared during the course of evidence and so Opposite Party No.2 was set ex-parte. Afterwards Opposite Party No.2 filed I.A to set aside the ex-parte order and it was allowed.
7. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant, documents Ext.A1 to A6 were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 had no oral evidence. Document B1 was marked from the side of Opposite Party No.1 and Document B2 was marked from the side of Opposite Party No.2. On the basis of the above facts, the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
(1) Whether there has been any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?.
(2) If so whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for?.
(3) Whether the Complainant has the right to get cost of the complaint?.
8. Point No.1:- On going through the complaint, versions filed by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, documents marked and the oral evidence adduced by PW1, the Commission finds the following:-
The main allegation of the Complainant is that though he had made an online booking of one X standard AC Deluxe room with breakfast in Opposite Party No.2’s Hotel through the Opposite Party No.1, the room was not made available to the Complainant and his friends on the stipulated date and time by the Opposite Party No.2, stating that no such room was booked in his name. On knowing this, the Complainant contacted with the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 in their version said that the online booking of the aforesaid room was booked by the Complainant which is evident from Ext.A1 document marked for which the Opposite Party No.1 has charged Rs.3,298/- from the Complainant. Here the Opposite Party No.1 has acted as an agent of the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.1 in version has narrated that ‘’the hotelier further informed the Complainant that the rooms of the same category are sold out and that the hotelier has not updated the inventory on the booking platform’’. This point has not been denied by the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 has not even tried to cross examine the Opposite Party No.1 to defend the statement so made by the Opposite Party No.1 in version. From this, it is very clear that at the time of online booking, the room in question was available vacant in the booking platform and hence the Complainant has booked the same by remitting the room rent through the online platform of the Opposite Party No.1. Once a booking of the hotel room is made by the Complainant and the room rent is charged by the Opposite Party No.1 (Agent) on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 (Principal), the Opposite Party No.2 is duty bound to provide the room of the same description which is booked to the Complainant because acts of the agent can be considered as the acts of the principal. If the room was sold out and if the hotelier had not updated the inventory on the booking platform, clearly it was the lapse from the part of the Opposite Party No.2. The booking of the room was made by the Complainant to occupy the room for himself and his friends. At the time when the Complainant and his friends reached the hotel, the booked room was not made available by the Opposite Party No.2. So the Complainant and his friends had to wait for another room up to 10.30 after reaching the hotel at 8.24 pm. Here, the Opposite Party No.2 is not justified to take the plea that the Complainant did not booked the room directly with the hotelier; the Complainant booked the room with Opposite Party No.1; it was online booking; the Opposite Party No.2 had sold out the rooms of the same category; the hotelier had not updated the inventory on the booking platform etc. The fact that Opposite Party No.1 had arranged another upgraded room (periyar suite) of higher rent than that of the room already had booked by the Complainant and that the Opposite Party No.2 had provided it after about two hours after booking etc do not minimise the sufferings and grievances faced by the Complainant and his friends. The acts and omissions in this respect from the part of the Opposite party No.2 constitutes unfair trade practice/deficiency in service. All other allegations and contentions put forward by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 in connection with this complaint are immaterial and cannot be justified by the Commission in the interest of justice. Therefore Point No.1 is proved against Opposite Party No.2 for their acts and omissions. We see that Opposite Party No.1 has acted in good faith in this issue and as such they are relieved from unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
9. Point No.2:- As Point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant has the right to get compensation.
10. Point No.3:- As Point No.1 and 2 are proved in favour of the Complainant, he has also the right to get cost of the complaint.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and Opposite Party No.2 is directed
(1) To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for inconvenience and mental agony to the Complainant and
(2) To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as cost of the complaint to the Complainant.
The above amount shall be paid by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order failing which the Complainant shall have the right to realize the amount together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this Order through due process of law.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of December 2021.
Date of Filing: 08.06.2018.
PRESIDENT (I/C) :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Boban Mathew. Business.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Payment Receipt.
A2. Copy of Voucher. Dt:02.12.2017.
A3. Room Tariff Brochure.
A4. Invoice. Dt:03.12.2017.
A5. Lawyer Notice. Dt:10.03.2018.
A6. Reply Notice. Dt:28.03.2018.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
B1. Printout of Clear trip booking Page.
B2. Copy of Room Reservation Chart.
PRESIDENT(I/C) :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.