Back
Haridwar Consumer Commission Holds Liable For Over Denied Hotel Booking
Failure to honour a confirmed online hotel booking has cost Rooms a significant penalty from the .
In a recent decision, the Commission, comprising President Gagan Kumar Gupta and Members Dr. Amresh Rawat and Ranjana Goyal, ruled that ’s failure to ensure the original booking and promptly reimburse the extra expenses incurred by the consumer amounted to a . The Commission ordered the travel aggregator to pay a total of ₹25,029, including compensation for mental agony and .
Background of the Dispute
The , Rajtrehan, booked a room at , Bhuj, Gujarat, through 's platform for ₹1,528 on . However, upon arrival, the hotel refused accommodation, citing a payment dispute with . The company then arranged an alternative booking at a different hotel for ₹1,879, which the alleged was more expensive and offered fewer facilities. He also incurred ₹150 in auto-rickshaw expenses to reach the alternative hotel. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to get a refund, including a filed with the , Rajtrehan approached the consumer commission.
Arguments Presented Before the Commission
contested the complaint, arguing that it operates merely as an online platform facilitating bookings and does not directly provide accommodation. It claimed that after the first booking failed, the accepted the alternative booking, and had already offered refunds and discount vouchers, which the declined. The company maintained that it had made every effort to resolve the matter before the complaint was filed.
The , appearing in person, argued that ’s delayed offer came only after he had already suffered financial loss and mental distress. He sought a full refund of the additional ₹351 spent on the alternative booking, along with compensation for the inconvenience.
Legal Analysis and Key Findings
The Commission closely examined the documentary evidence, including the booking confirmations, emails from acknowledging the glitch, and the correspondence between the parties. It noted that 's own communications reflected an acknowledgment of the problem. The Commission observed:
“Through the submissions of Opposite Party No. 1, the complaint appears to be acknowledged. ’s failure to promptly reimburse the additional expenditure incurred by the due to the failed booking amounts to .”
The Commission rejected ’s contention that it was merely an , holding that it bore responsibility for ensuring that the bookings made through its platform were honoured. The fact that offered a refund only after the consumer complaint was instituted did not absolve it of its . The Commission emphasised that the delay itself constituted a failure of service.
The Final Verdict
The Commission allowed the complaint against (Opposite Party No. 1) and dismissed the complaint against the hotel (), as it found no direct of the hotel in the dispute. was directed to pay the following amounts within 45 days:
- ₹1,879 towards the cost of the alternative hotel booking.
- ₹150 towards auto-rickshaw expenses.
- ₹15,000 as .
- ₹8,000 towards .
In case of , the entire amount shall carry from the date of filing of the complaint () until realisation. The order was pronounced on .
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Commission underscored that an online platform cannot escape by claiming it merely facilitates bookings. It noted that the obligation to ensure that confirmed reservations are honoured rests squarely on the . The ruling serves as a reminder that aggregators must have robust mechanisms to handle booking failures promptly and compensate affected consumers without unnecessary delays.
