Confirmed Booking, No Check-In: Consumer Commission Holds OYO Liable For Deficiency In Service
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, comprising President Sri P.V. Jayarajan and Members Smt. Preetha G. Nair and Sri Viju V.R., has held OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. and its partner hotel jointly liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for denying a consumer check-in despite a confirmed and fully paid booking. The Commission observed...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, comprising President Sri P.V. Jayarajan and Members Smt. Preetha G. Nair and Sri Viju V.R., has held OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. and its partner hotel jointly liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for denying a consumer check-in despite a confirmed and fully paid booking. The Commission observed that compelling a consumer to pay additional charges after confirming the booking, delaying check-in for nearly an hour, and failing to issue a valid invoice amounted to deficiency in service and violated the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020.
Brief facts
The complainant, T.S. Ashish, booked an air-conditioned room at OYO Hotel 12 Roomz, Puducherry, through the OYO app on 9 November 2023, paying ₹414 in advance via UPI. Despite having a confirmed booking, the hotel allegedly demanded an additional ₹800 and refused check-in unless the extra amount was paid. Although the complainant contacted OYO's customer care and shared his identity proof as directed, he was made to wait for nearly an hour without resolution and ultimately left the hotel without checking in. He also alleged that OYO failed to issue an invoice for the booking, in violation of the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020.
Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking refund of the booking amount, compensation for mental agony and inconvenience, and litigation costs.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. denied the allegations and contended that the complainant had initially failed to provide a valid identity proof, which caused the delay in check-in. It claimed that after the complainant furnished the required ID, the issue was promptly resolved and the hotel was ready to provide check-in. OYO further argued that the complainant himself left the premises without checking in despite being informed that the room was available. It also submitted that its role was limited to providing an online booking platform and that the operational responsibility for the hotel rested with the property manager, who alone would be responsible for any lapse. The hotel property manager did not appear before the Commission and was proceeded ex parte.
Observation and decision
The Commission observed that the complainant had a valid confirmed booking and had paid the room tariff in advance, yet was denied check-in unless he paid an additional ₹800. It rejected OYO's defence that the delay was due to non-submission of identity proof, noting that the complainant had furnished the required ID and that OYO failed to ensure that the confirmed booking was honoured. The Commission also held that OYO could not avoid liability by claiming to be merely an online booking platform and found its failure to issue an invoice contrary to the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020. Accordingly, it held OYO and the hotel liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Commission directed OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. and the hotel to refund ₹414, pay ₹5,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience, and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs. The Commission directed that the amounts be paid within 30 days, failing which they shall carry interest at 9% per annum in terms of the order.
Case Title: T.S. Ashish v. OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.: 639/2023