Panchkula District Commission Holds OYO Rooms, Its Registered Hotel Liable For Denying Check-in Despite Receiving Full Payment

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana) bench comprising Sh. Satpal (President), Dr. Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held Oyo Rooms and Hotel Kasauli Continental liable for failure to assure check-in, despite receiving full payment for the same. Even though the Hotel was no more tied up with Oyo, there was a lock-in requirement of 12 months during which the Hotel was responsible for honouring confirmed bookings. Brief Facts: The Complainant through the website of OYO Rooms booked a hotel for a stay at Hotel Kasauli Continental (“Hotel”). Despite receiving a booking ID, upon arrival, the Complainant and his family were denied accommodation by the hotel. The hotel staff claimed that they have no association with OYO. Allegedly, the situation escalated with verbal abuse and physical assault directed at the Complainant by the owner of the hotel. Feeling threatened, the Complainant sought police intervention and incurred additional expenses for alternative accommodation. Despite attempts to resolve the issue through emails, the Complainant didn't receive any satisfactory response from OYO Rooms and the hotel. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against OYO Rooms and the hotel. In response, OYO Rooms contended that its role is limited to facilitating bookings and is not liable for operational liabilities. It argued that it offered alternative accommodation and proposed compensation, which the Complainant rejected in favour of demanding excessive compensation. It argued that no breach of service occurred on its part and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Conversely, the hotel refuted the Complainant's claims, alleging his misconduct and intoxicated behaviour at the hotel. It argued the Complainant demanded a room at a significantly reduced rate, disregarding standard tariffs, and subsequently engaged in abusive behaviour towards hotel staff. It argued that the hotel had ceased OYO bookings, with clear notices displayed. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission referred to Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines a consumer. It held that even a person who promises payment falls under this category. As the Complainant was set to pay upon check-in, the District Commission held that he qualified as a consumer. The District Commission noted the Complainant was unable to check-in at the hotel, despite the confirmed booking made through OYO Rooms. The hotel argued that it had terminated its tie-up with OYO. The District Commission rejected this plea, highlighting the binding nature of the agreement between the hotel and OYO Rooms. According to this agreement, there was a lock-in period of 12 months. Therefore, the District Commission held that the hotel breached the terms and conditions of the agreement by not honouring the confirmed booking of the Complainant. Further, the District Commission noted that the Complainant's consistent assertions in his complaint regarding the lack of assistance or alternative accommodation provided by OYO Rooms post-incident remained unrefuted. It held that OYO Rooms failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting its defence of offering alternative accommodation to the Complainant. Consequently, the District Commission directed the hotel and OYO Rooms to collectively pay a total compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the Complainant, with Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by each party for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the Complainant and his family. Additionally, a compensation of Rs. 5,500 was to be paid by each party towards litigation charges incurred by the Complainant.Case Title: Kanishak Singhal vs OYO Rooms and Others Click Here To Read/Download Order

Panchkula District Commission Holds OYO Rooms, Its Registered Hotel Liable For Denying Check-in Despite Receiving Full Payment

Smita Singh

Tags