Booked Hotel Found 30 Km Away From Shown Location, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Stay Vista Liable And Hideaway Cottage Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Stay Vista Private Limited and the Hideaway Cottage liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Stay Vista, an online hotel booking platform, failed to resolve a customer's grievance after substandard conditions at the hotel and a discrepancy in its location were reported. Brief Facts: The Complainant made a reservation for three hotel rooms via the online platform 'www.swtayvista.com' operated by Stay Vista Private Limited (“Stay Vista”). The booking was for "The Hideaway Cottage" located in Solan, Himachal Pradesh for which he paid Rs. 34,718/-. The Complainant received an email confirming the booking which indicated that the hotel's location was in Kasauli. However, upon arrival, the Complainant came to know that the hotel was situated 30 KM away from Kasauli. Further, he faced difficulties due to an inadequate link road which was unsuitable for motor vehicles, and a hazardous access road with steep terrain and sharp stones. Upon arrival at the hotel, the conditions were found to be subpar. Consequently, the Complainant requested the hotel staff to cancel the booking and refund the full amount. Despite the request for cancellation and refund, the hotel staff refused, prompting the Complainant to seek alternative accommodations in Kasauli or Chail. The Complainant made several communications to Stay Vista and the hotel. However, they remained unresponsive to these requests. Consequently, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Stay Vista and the hotel. Stay Vista and the hotel didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that the Complainant was under the impression that the hotel was situated in Kasauli. Despite the substandard conditions encountered at the hotel and the discrepancy in location, Stay Vista and the hotel failed to respond to the Complainant's requests for a refund or alternative arrangements, even after the issuance of a legal notice. Therefore, the District Commission held that the actions of Stay Vista and the hotel constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the District Commission directed Stay Vista and the hotel to remit the amount of Rs. 34,718/- paid by the Complainant along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum. Additionally, they were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for the mental agony and harassment endured, with an additional Rs. 10,000/- for the costs of litigation incurred by him.Case Title: Amit Kumar vs Stay Vista Private Limited and Anr. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Booked Hotel Found 30 Km Away From Shown Location, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Stay Vista Liable And Hideaway Cottage Liable

Smita Singh

Tags