Cancellation And Reallotment Of Hotel Bookings, Bangalore District Commission Holds Yatra Online Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of M. Shobha(President), K. Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held Yatra Online liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for hotel bookings that were cancelled and re-allotted, which were not up to the satisfaction of the complainant. Brief Facts: The...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of M. Shobha(President), K. Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held Yatra Online liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for hotel bookings that were cancelled and re-allotted, which were not up to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant booked two separate hotels through Yatra Online for his trip. One booking was for Cloudnine Inside Hotel from December 15 to 16, 2023, for Rs. 5,33,736/-, and another for Green Garden Ayurveda Resort from December 16 to 17, 2023, amounting to Rs. 5,96,210/-. On December 13, 2023, Yatra informed the Complainant via email and phone that Cloudnine Inside Resort would not honour the booking and suggested an alternative, Unwind Hotels and Resorts, located 50 kilometres away. Dissatisfied with this change, the Complainant requested to switch to Black Beach Resort. Yatra confirmed via email their arrangement for Black Beach Resort as an alternative for the stay. However, upon arrival at Black Beach Resort, the manager denied the booking. After extensive discussions with Yatra, the Complainant was accommodated at Rachna's Resort at 1:30 p.m., one and a half hours after the designated check-in time of noon.
On December 16, 2023, as per the schedule for check-in at Green Garden Ayurveda Resort at noon, the Complainant received a call from Yatra indicating their inability to facilitate the check-in and proposed an alternate location, Thiruvambadi Beach Resort. Upon reaching Thiruvambadi Beach Resort, the Complainant discovered no booking was made by Yatra. Yatra suggested another alternative, Akil Beach Resort, and confirmed it over a call. However, within a few minutes, Yatra informed the Complainant that Akil Beach Resort does not accommodate bachelors. Subsequently, Yatra proposed another alternative, Raja Park Beach Resort, and confirmed the booking. The Complainant finally received confirmation for accommodation at Raja Park Beach Resort significantly deviating from the planned itinerary. This situation required the Complainant to put in extensive efforts to rectify the situation, including continuous communication with Yatra. Despite repeated assurances, no satisfactory resolution was provided by the company. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, Karnataka (“District Commission”) against Yatra.
Upon receiving notice, Yatra argued that the Complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the Master User Agreement, which includes a jurisdictional clause specifying that disputes should be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Gurgaon, Haryana. It contended that Yatra, acting as an intermediary, is exempt from liability under Section 79 of the IT Act, which states that intermediaries are not liable for third-party information or data made available or hosted by them. Yatra stated that it is merely a facilitator of services, not a service provider, and therefore cannot be held liable for any deficiencies or disputes related to the services provided by third-party service providers.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the bookings were cancelled and re-allotted by Yatra. It held that the Complainant faced significant difficulties during his trip, which had been meticulously planned in advance through Yatra. Despite the advance bookings, the accommodations were not provided promptly which caused the Complainant to endure mental stress, inconvenience, and the need to expend considerable time and energy arranging alternative lodging. The District Commission noted that the alternative accommodations offered by Yatra were not to the Complainant's satisfaction and he had no choice but to accept them under the circumstances. Therefore, the District Commission held Yatra liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
As a well-known and reputable platform for travel bookings, the District Commission held that Yatra has a responsibility to ensure that its customers are well taken care of and provided with satisfactory services. It held that the customers of Yatra rely on the platform for a comfortable stay and safety during their travels to unfamiliar destinations, and any failure in service can severely impact their travel experience.
Consequently, the District Commission directed Yatra to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant.
Case Title: Nakul Munjal vs Yatra Online Private Limited
Case Number: CC/522/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 25th June 2024