The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar, comprising President Gagan Kumar Gupta and Members Dr. Amresh Rawat and Ranjana Goyal, has held OYO Rooms Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in service after a consumer's confirmed hotel booking was not honoured and directed the company to compensate the consumer for the resulting loss and inconvenience.

Facts:

The complainant, Rajtrehan, resident of Chandralok, near Vanprastha Ashram, Jwalapur, Haridwar, booked a hotel room through OYO Rooms Pvt. Ltd. for himself and his friend at Days Inn Studio House, Bhuj, Gujarat. The booking was confirmed for ₹1,528.

On 24 September 2019, when the complainant and his friend reached the hotel, the hotel allegedly refused to provide the booked room, stating that there was a payment dispute between the hotel and OYO. OYO subsequently arranged an alternative hotel booking for the complainant at ₹1,879. The complainant alleged that the alternative hotel was more expensive and had fewer facilities. He also incurred ₹150 in auto-rickshaw expenses.

The complainant raised a grievance before the National Consumer Helpline on 23 April 2021. OYO subsequently acknowledged the issue and offered compensation in the form of discount vouchers and a differential amount. The complainant, however, sought a refund of the amount spent on the alternative hotel booking and compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony and other losses allegedly caused to him.

The complainant thereafter filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar, alleging deficiency in service.

Contentions of the OYO:

OYO contested the complaint, maintaining that it operates an online platform through which consumers can book rooms but does not itself provide or directly operate the hotel accommodation. It further stated that, after the first booking failed, the complainant accepted the alternative booking and that OYO subsequently offered to refund ₹1,879, along with an additional ₹1,000, but the complainant declined the offer.

The hotel, Opposite Party No. 2, did not file a written response or evidence before the Commission, and proceedings against it were subsequently conducted ex parte.

Observation and decision:

The Commission observed that the complainant had successfully established that the original booking made through OYO's platform was not honoured by the hotel. It noted that OYO subsequently arranged another hotel booking costing ₹1,879, the burden of which ultimately fell upon the complainant. The documentary evidence placed on record supported the complainant's case.

The Commission further noted that although OYO later offered to refund the amount and proposed additional compensation, the offer was made after the consumer dispute had already been instituted. The Commission held that OYO's failure to promptly reimburse the complainant for the additional expenditure incurred due to the failed booking amounted to deficiency in service. It also observed that OYO's own correspondence reflected acknowledgment of the grievance raised by the complainant.

The Commission accordingly held OYO liable for deficiency in service for failing to promptly reimburse the complainant for the additional expenses incurred due to the failed booking.

Allowing the complaint against OYO, the Commission directed the company to pay ₹1,879 towards the alternative hotel booking and ₹150 towards auto-rickshaw expenses. It further awarded ₹15,000 for mental agony and physical hardship and ₹8,000 towards litigation costs. The amounts were directed to be paid within 45 days, failing which they would carry simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realization.

The complaint against Opposite Party No. 2 (the hotel) was dismissed.

Case Title: Rajtrehan v. OYO Rooms Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No: DC/50/CC/12/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order