North-East Delhi District Commission Holds OYO Rooms And Goibibo Liable For Deficiency In Service, Orders To Pay Rs. 1 Lakh Each Compensation

Brief Facts:

Mrs Anupama Kasana (“Complainant”), along with six family members, planned a family tour and booked three OYO rooms at Silver Wood Hotel (“Hotel”) via GOIBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. (“GOIBIBO”). The confirmation was duly received by the Complainant through an email from GOIBIBO. A total amount of Rs. 26,866/- was paid by the Complainant using her credit card. No communication was received by the Complainant regarding any cancellation or change in her confirmed booking up until the departure. However, when the Complainant and her family reached the Hotel, the Hotel refused to allot them rooms. This left the Complainant and her family stranded on the open road. Despite efforts to seek a resolution through the customer care representatives of OYO and GOIBIBO, no resolution was provided. Consequently, the Complainant had to secure accommodation at another Hotel for half of the night and subsequently relocate to another Hotel, incurring additional expenses of Rs. 6,500/- and Rs. 24,000/-, respectively.

Throughout this ordeal, neither OYO, GOIBIBO nor the Hotel made any attempt to contact the Complainant. On June 8, 2019, GOIBIBO, via email, outrightly refused to provide accommodation to the Complainant. Subsequently, on June 10, 2019, the Complainant formally requested a refund from OYO, and in response, GOIBIBO provided misleading and fabricated entries in their records. Unsuccessful in obtaining a resolution, the Complainant issued a notice to OYO and GOIBIBO detailing the hardships faced and demanded compensation. Despite reminders on June 17, 2019, and August 10, 2019, both companies failed to respond. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi, Delhi (“District Commission”).

OYO contended that it operates a website and mobile app enabling customers to search and book Hotels and homes nationwide, listing over 13,500 properties in India. However, it argued that it does not own or operate these establishments. Therefore, it asserted that it did not play a role in the specific booking made by the Complainant. The complainant booked the rooms through GOIBIBO's online portal for the Hotel, and the entire transaction took place between the Complainant, GOIBIBO, and the Hotel. It argued that it did not accept any money from the Complainant, and there was no privity of contract between them.

GOIBIBO argued that it is a mere facilitator, forwarding booking requests from customers to hospitality service providers through its web portal. GOIBIBO explained the process of entering into an E-contract with customers, binding them to the terms and conditions outlined in the User Agreement. The Complainants, by agreeing to these terms, acknowledged their understanding of GOIBIBO's role as a facilitator.

None appeared on behalf of the Hotel and it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission held that since OYO charges a service fee from hostels for listing their property on the website and facilitating bookings, OYO assumes the role of an agent for the hotels. Consequently, any deficiency in service on the part of the hotels listed on OYO's website makes it liable for any shortcomings on the part of the hotels. Further, the District Commission noted that OYO did not present any evidence demonstrating actions taken against the Hotel, such as de-registering the Hotel from the website, in response to the failure to provide rooms against the confirmed booking.

Moreover, it was highlighted by the District Commission that GOIBIBO confirmed that the Complainant booked the Hotel through their website, and although a refund was issued later when the Complainant arrived at the Hotel, this action alone does not absolve OYO and GOIBIBO from the responsibility for the distress and inconvenience faced by the Complainant and her family. The District Commission noted that the Complainant's family members included minors and senior citizens, and due to the unavailability of rooms despite a confirmed booking, they were forced to relocate to a distant location. Therefore, the District Commission held that OYO and GOIBIBO should be held accountable for the emotional distress caused to the Complainant and her family.

Consequently, the District Commission held OYO and GOIBIBO liable for deficiency in service and ruled in favour of the Complainant. It directed OYO and GOIBIBO to pay Rs 1,00,000/- each to the Complainant for deficiency in service.

Case Title: Anupama Kasana and others vs OYO Rooms Ltd. and others

Case No.: Complaint Case No. 77/21

Click Here To Read/Download The Order