Hotel Booked Through MakeMyTrip Denies Accommodation, Traveller Left Stranded; Bangalore District Commission Holds MakeMyTrip Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising M Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to assist the Complainant when a hotel based in London informed him that no reservation existed in his name. The bench directed it...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising M Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to assist the Complainant when a hotel based in London informed him that no reservation existed in his name. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 4,34,420/- for the alternate arrangement made by the Complainant along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation costs incurred by him. It was also directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- for punitive damages in the consumer welfare fund.
Brief Facts:
Mr Mayur Bharath (“Complainant”) booked a hotel in London for a business trip through the MakeMyTrip (“MMT”) app, receiving confirmation and paying the full amount in advance. However, upon his arrival at the hotel, he was informed that no reservation existed under his name. Despite multiple calls to MMT's hotline and assurances of assistance, the Complainant was left stranded for hours without accommodation, eventually forced to find an alternative hotel at a significantly higher cost due to peak season rates and limited availability. The Complainant made several communications with MMT and didn't receive any satisfactory response and was only partially refunded. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, Karnataka (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against MMT.
In response, MMT contended that it merely facilitated the booking process and should not be held responsible for the hotel's failure to honour the reservation. It maintained that the Complainant made the booking independently through their app and that it promptly refunded the initial amount paid, offering additional compensation which was declined by the Complainant. MMT prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission rejected MMT's contention that it bore no liability for the deficiency in service and held that the Complainant had trust in the MMT app for the facilitation of services offered by it. It criticized MMT's lack of proactive measures to assist the Complainant during his ordeal and its failure to provide satisfactory explanations for the lapses in service. The District Commission held that MMT's actions were indicative of arrogance. Therefore, it held MMT liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.
The District Commission ordered MMT to reimburse the Complainant Rs. 4,34,420/- for the excess amount paid for alternative accommodation, along with interest at 10% per annum from the date of the incident. Additionally, it was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the Complainant's inconvenience, hardship, and mental agony, along with Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation costs incurred by the Complainant. Recognizing the need to deter future misconduct, the District Commission imposed punitive damages of Rs. 25,000/- which were directed to be deposited in the consumer welfare fund.