BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.115 of 2016
Date of Instt. 14.03.2016
Date of Decision: 26.07.2017
Lalit Mahajan son of Sh. Roop Kumar Mahajan, resident of 89-90, Kalia Colony, Near Verka Milk Plant, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Travelguru Head Office: Travelguru.com.802, 8th Floor, 'C' Wing Eureka Towers, Mind space, Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai- 400064.
2. Hotel ZO Grand Andheri East Mumabi, India, through its owner Roshan Shetty.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Adv Counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is the father of Shivam Mahajan and Sanchit Mahajan and the present complaint is being filed by the complainant before this Forum. The complainant booked the Hotel of the OP No.2 through On-Line on 09.10.2015, through OP No.1, by making a payment through Credit Card for his two sons namely Shivam Mahajan and Sanchit Mahajan alongwith their two friends namely Savi Mahajan and Mohit Sharma for 24 December, 2015 to 28 December, 2015 in Mumbai and from 29 December, 2015 to 02.01.2016 at Hotel Campal Panjim, Goa, i.e. Hotel Campal Panjim, Opposite Kala Academy behind Wendell Rodricks Studio Campal, Panjim, Goa, India. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.11,681/- through Credit Card No.45145600, Account No.9150 Axis Bank Branch, Jalandhar. When the aforesaid sons of the complainant alongwith their two friends reached at Mumbai on 24.12.2015, through Flight No.161, Spice Jet, the owner of the aforesaid Hotel told the sons of the complainant and their friends that his agreement with the OP No.1 breached last week of November, 2015. So, the aforesaid persons i.e. sons of the complainant and their friends cannot stay at the Hotel of the OP No.2. The sons of the complainant alongwith their friends requested the OP No.2 to allow them stay at the Hotel with cash amount, but he refused to accede to the genuine request of the sons of the complainant and their friends. It is pertinent to mention here that the sons of the complainant requested the OP No.2 that the advance payment for staying in the Hotel has already been paid through the OP No.1 to OP No.2 through Credit Card, but the manager/owner of the OP No.2 did not listen to the sons of the complainant and their friends. Thereafter, the sons of the complainant and their friends by paying huge amount stayed at Mumbai due to heavy rush of Chrismis Day and New Year Celebration and from Mumbai they went to Goa on 29 December, 2015 and stayed at Hotel Campal Panjim Goa from 29th December, 2015 to 02.01.2016.
2. That due to the behaviour of the OP No.2, the aforesaid sons including their friends and complainant suffered very hardship at the hands of the OP No.2 and the OP No.1 is also liable for the same, hence both the parties are liable for harassment for the sons of the complainant. After visiting to Jalandhar, the sons of the complainant told the complainant. The complainant talked with the OP No.1 on phone and demanded back the aforesaid amount from the OP No.1, but the OP No.1 put the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to return the aforesaid amount to the complainant. On account of deficient and negligent services on the part of the OP No.1 and 2, the complainant suffered mental tension, agony, loss of finance and loss of time, botheration etc for which the complainant is liable for compensation and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs may be directed to return the aforesaid booking amount of Rs.11,681/- and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages suffered by the complainant due to mental tension, agony, harassment, financial loss and loss of time etc on account of deficient and negligent services on the part of the OPs.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service, OP No.2 did not come present and ultimately OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has instituted a complaint against the company, Yatra TG Stays Private Limited, formerly known as D.V. Travels Guru Private Limited, which is an online hotel booking service provider, providing facility through the medium of Internet and phone. At the outset, it is important to highlight that it is standard industry practice that hotel bookings are provided by hotels by associating with various online booking service providers through their booking platform, Hence, the answering OP merely arranges for bookings as per the end customer's choice of booking itinerary and further alleged that in the instant case, the complainant having used the online platform www.travelguru.com. It shall not be out of place to mention that the complainant has not exhausted alternative remedies agreed under the Master User Agreement, the agreement clearly provides for arbitration proceedings in case of a dispute between the parties, which the complainant has completely ignored and filed this consumer complaint, which is wasting the valuable time of this Forum and further averred that the Forum is not vested with the jurisdiction over the territories, where the parties to the complaint reside, the registered office of answering OP and hotel of OP No.2 are situated in Mumbai, the hotel booking was done by the complainant through the computer system of the OP, which systems are based in Mumbai. The booking was hence made in Mumbai and payment was received in Mumbai, and the alleged cause of action arose in Mumabi at Maharashtra. Hence, it is stated that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on this complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant booked hotel rooms through OP No.1 but other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the claim of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/3 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the complainant in person and the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. It is not disputed that the complainant got booked the rooms in the hotel of OP No.2 through OP No.1, after making a payment of Rs.11,681/- through Credit Card for 24.12.2015 to 28.12.2015 and it is also admitted that the said booking was got by the complainant through OP No.1, to whom the payment was made through Credit Card and it is also admitted that the account of the complainant is at Jalandhar and payment was made from Jalandhar. It is also not established by the OP No.1 that OP No.2 has to provide the rooms to the sons of the complainant for 29.12.2015 to 02.01.2016, if virtually the rooms were provided by OP No.2 then the OP No.1 can bring on the file any documentary evidence but no such like documentary evidence has been brought on the file and as such it is established that the rooms were not provided to the sons of the complainant and plea taken by the OP No.1 in the written statement is that the role of the OP No.1 is only to provide online booking in hotel all over India except that the OP No.1 is not providing any service and further alleged that the alternative remedy with the complainant is only to file a case before the Arbitrator, which is the appropriate Forum but complaint before the Consumer Forum is not maintainable and further alleged that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction because the registered office of the OP No.1 as well as hotel of the OP No.2 are situated in Mumbai. The hotel booking was done by the complainant through computer system of the OP, which systems are based in Mumbai, the booking was hence made in Mumbai and payment was received in Mumbai and the alleged cause of action arose in Mumbai and therefore complaint of the complainant for want of jurisdiction should be dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival contention of the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and find that the complainant has booked rooms in the hotel of OP No.2 through OP No.1 for 24.12.2015 to 28.12.2015 and it is admitted that the payment was made through Credit Card by the complainant from his account, which is in Axis Bank, Branch Jalandhar. The amount paid to the OP No.1 is Rs.11,681/- for room booking and if the payment is made at Jalandhar then this Forum has a jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and furthermore a filing of complaint before the Consumer Forum is additional remedy as provided under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and if the complainant choose to file the complaint before the Consumer Forum then there is no wrong because it is the choice of the complainant either to file arbitration proceedings or to file a consumer complaint before the Consumer Forum and as such the version of the learned counsel for the OP No.1 is not acceptable and having no solid substances.
9. Apart from above, if we go through the documents, brought on the file by the complainant then the situation will become clear itself, for that purpose, first of all, we like to refer the affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA, whereby he reiterated the entire story as elaborated in the complaint and further the advertisement of the OP No.1 is Ex.C1, whereby advertised that any hotel booking through out India can be got booked through OP No.1 and further email message of the Hotel Grand i.e. OP No.2 is Ex.C2, whereby stated that the OP No.2/Hotel has stopped taking booking from “Zo Rooms” since November, 2015 which are already paid bookings, we would have liked to help you but as there are no rooms available in our property. So, it means that the OP No.2/Hotel stopped taking booking through “Zo Rooms” and OP No.1 used to get the booking through “Zo Rooms”. So, this factum must be in the notice of the OP No.1 but despite that fact, the OP No.1 pretended that the rooms of the complainant in hotel of the OP No.2 is booked which are actually not booked. Then OP No.1 sent a confirmation of the booking through email of Ex.C3 but in that email the number of the rooms are not mentioned, so, it is not identified which room was booked for the complainant's sons. So, this document also creates confusion which was sent by the OP No.1, then the complainant brought on the file a receipt of payment for booking of the room is Ex.C4, wherein categorically mentioned that an amount of Rs.11,681/- was received through Credit Card and complainant also brought on the file Air Tickets of his sons and their friends from New Delhi to Mumbai, the said tickets are Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 and these tickets itself established that the sons of the complainant and their friends had reached at Mumbai on 24.12.2015 but rooms were not provided to them by OP No.2 on the pretext that the booking of the room has been already cancelled. So, here, we find that the negligence is only on the part of the OP No.1, who is the service provider for booking of the room and moreover there is contract for providing room booking facility is by OP No.1 and there is no direct or indirect contract with OP No.2 and as such there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.2, rather the said facts have been established against OP No.1 and from whom the complainant is entitled to get return the price of the booking of room as well as compensation and litigation expenses.
10. In view of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted qua OP No.1 and complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed and further OP No.1 is directed to return the hotel room booking amount of Rs.11,681/- and further OP No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire amount be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest on the above whole amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
26.07.2017 Member President
