MMT and OYO directed to pay INR 42k compensation for causing 'mental agony and harassment', Read Order

07 Nov 2023

By : Riya Rathore

Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently passed an order in favour of a complainant who sought compensation from the opposite parties. The opposite parties, which are large hospitality companies, had cancelled his hotel booking just before a trip to Goa and later offered the same rooms at higher rates.

Facts of the Case:

Vineet Marwaha, the complainant, had made a hotel booking for The Essence Retreat, for the period from 26th to 30th December 2021 through the Goibibo website, paying Rs. 10,432. On 23rd December 2021, the complainant was informed that the booking had been cancelled because the hotel was non-operational and the room was unavailable. The said amount was refunded to the complainant. However, the complainant later discovered that the same hotel rooms for the same dates were available but at an exorbitant rate of Rs. 27,207. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties.

Contentions of the Parties:

The complainant argued that the opposite parties unfairly cancelled his booking and refunded the amount paid, only to later offer the same rooms at significantly higher rates, causing ‘mental agony and harassment’.
Make My Trip, Opposite Party No.1, claimed that they were merely an intermediary between the complainant and the actual hospitality service provider, Oyo. They contended that they forwarded the payment to Oyo and forwarded the confirmed hotel booking to the complainant. They denied any liability for the booking cancellation or the increase in rates.
OYO Rooms, Opposite Party No.5, claimed that they operated as a platform in the hospitality industry under the name ‘OYO Rooms.’ They stated that they arranged bookings and executed agreements with hotels but that they were not responsible for the pricing or booking cancellations. They asserted that there was no deficiency in their services.

Observations of the Consumer Court:

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found that the opposite parties had arbitrarily cancelled the complainant's booking just before the journey, causing significant inconvenience. It was noted that the same rooms in the same hotel were offered at much higher rates shortly after the cancellation, indicating profiteering. The Commission held that the opposite parties had caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

The Decision of the Consumer Court:

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favour of the complainant and directed the opposite parties to: