By: Smt. R.K.Madanavally, Member
The complainant had booked two suit rooms under opposite party for the period of 2nd May 2015 to 3rd May 2015 and get booking confirmation also from opposite party No.1 Vide ID No.MOTG 0002042346 dated 1/5/15 at opposite party No.2 ie Hotel Nalappad Residency. The room rent of Rs.7153/- was paid by the complainant through HDFC credit card.
On the way to the hotel, the complainant called to the above hotel and enquire about his booking from where he was asked to reach there at 1 pm for check -in. Thereafter the complainant reached there and they told the complainant to wait there. After waiting for the 1 ½ hours, it was informed by the reception staff and Managing partner that the booking through opposite party No.1 was not yet confirmed by them and no payment was taken from opposite party No.1. The complainant showed the confirmation copy and other documents. But they were not ready to accept it.
All the above incident were brought to the notice of opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 promised him that they will call back after discussing the matter with the opposite party No.2. But, there was no response.
However, the managing partner, Mr. George Samson of Nalappad Residency, arranged another hotel for the complainant and his family called Mahendra Hotels. But there was not enough facility for them. Thereafter the complainant sent email to opposite party No.1 informing all his difficulties, but the opposite party No.1 did not respond for the same. The opposite party No.1 was not ready to refund the amount because according to them, the complainant had not paid any amount to Mahendra hotels for his stay but paid by opposite party No.2, ie hotel Nalappad Residency.
The complainant believed that opposite party No.2 had given the booked suit room to some other customer on higher rates and canceled their booking. Hence the complainant and his family had to suffer mental and physical agony and monitory loss. Hence this complaint.
Both opposite parties filed version. According to opposite party No.2, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. It can only be tried in CDRF, Mysore. There is no contract between the complainant and opposite party No.2 as there was no contract between them. Hence Prima faice the complaint is not maintainable.
According to opposite party No.1, this Forum lacks Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since there was an Arbitration clause in the 'Master User Agreement'. The territorial jurisdiction was also challenged. They are merely a travel agent and had booked the hotel rooms as per complainant's selected hotel ie opposite party No.2 and they had made the payments in advance. So there is no deficiency on their part. The grievance of the complainant is against Mahendra Hotel and the same was not made a party in the proceedings.
The opposite party No.1 had admitted the booking by the complainant, their payment to opposite party No.2, the several complaints through e-mail by the complainant and the complainant's stay in Mahendra Hotel etc. As a booking platform they had provided every service to the complainant and no deficiency is committed by them and so the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.
Now the issues arises for our consideration here in are;
(1) Whether the opposite parties are deficient in service?
(2) Relief and cost.
Point No.1
Complainant filed Chief Affidavit and the documents are marked as Ext. A1 to A20. Ext. A2 and A3 are the contract details of opposite party N o.1 and opposite party No.2 respectively, Ext. A5 is the hotel booking confirmation letter, Ext. A6 is the credit card statement, Ext. A7 and 8 are the e mails sent to opposite parties, Ext. A9 is the e mail received from opposite party No.2, Ext. A10 is the email sent to opposite parties, Ext. A11 and 12 are the e mail received from opposite party No.1, Ext. A13 is the e mail sent by the complainant, Ext. A14 is the bill issued by Mahendra hotel, Ext. A15 is the e mail received from opposite party No.1, Ext. A16 and Ext. A17 are the email sent by the complainant and the reply of opposite party No.1 respectively, Ext. A18 is the e mail sent by the complainant, Ext. A19 and A20 are the e mails received by the opposite party No.1.
The opposite parties did not file affidavit. Heard the complainant and perused the records. Since there is no contra evidence, the case of the complainant has been prooved.
The various e mail communication sent by the complainant to opposite party No.1 and 2 shows his continous effort for getting a satisfactory reply and remedy from opposite parties. But it was in vain.
The booking confirmation of the hotel is prooved by Ext. A5. Further he had to made payment to Mahendra hotel which is prooved by Ext. A14. So, no evidence is before us to challenge these facts. Hence both opposite parties are jointly and severally, liable to compensate the complainant. Due to the negligence of opposite parties the complainant and his family including their guest had to face much complications and sufferings in Mysore. It is the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
The opposite party No.1 ought to had ensured the accommodation under opposite party No.2 for the complainant and his family. By not providing the reasons even after the confirmation of ticket is realy injustice. The 1st point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the above discussion and findings we are allowing the complaint and passing the following orders.
The opposite parties shall pay Rs.7153/- to the complainant being the advance payment paid by the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.1,00000/- for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant and his family and a cost of Rs.10000/-.
The liability of the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally.
This order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest upon the said amount from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
Dated this 31st day of August, 2016.
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A20
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of Demand Draft, infavour of Senior Superintendent C D R F, Malappuram
Ext.A2 : Contact details of Nalapad Residency.
Ext A3 : Contact details of Nalapad Residency.
Ext A4 : Contact details.
Ext A5 : Booking confirmation letter.
Ext.A6 : Credit card statement.
Ext.A7 : E mails sent to opposite party.
Ext A8 : E mail sent to opposite party.
Ext A9 : E mail received from opposite party No.2.
Ext A10 : E mails sent to opposite party.
Ext.A11 : E mail received from opposite party No.1
Ext.A12 : E mail received from opposite party No.1
Ext A13 : e mail sent by the complainant.
Ext A14 : Bill issued by Mahendra hotel
Ext A15 : e mail received from opposite party No.1.
Ext.A16 : email sent by the complainant .
Ext.A17 : The reply of opposite party No.1.
Ext A18 : e mail sent by the complainant
Ext A19 : e mails received by the opposite party No.1.
Ext A20 : e mails received by the opposite party No.1.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
