Mumbai: Consumer Commission directs OYO and Hotel Vijay to refund ₹583 and pay ₹10,000 compensation for denying accommodation to a Mumbai student | Representative Photo
Mumbai: The Mumbai Suburban Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, while reprimanding a Surat-based hotel for failing to provide accommodation to a Mumbai-based consumer, questioned whether the hotel remembered the principle of “Atithi Devo Bhava”.
Holding both OYO and the hotel responsible for the inconvenience caused to the complainant, the commission directed them to refund the prepaid booking amount of ₹583, along with an additional ₹10,000 as compensation for the complainant’s mental agony and harassment.
The commission, in its order, noted that it is highly implausible to accept the hotel’s allegations that a consumer—a student traveling alone to another state to appear for a recruitment exam—would misbehave with a hotelier at their business establishment. It further observed that these allegations were unwarranted, unsupported by evidence, and irrelevant to the case.
Akshay Kardak, a resident of Mulund, had booked a room at an OYO-affiliated hotel in Surat in June 2022 to attend a Railway Recruitment Board exam. He reserved the room for June 11, 2022, through OYO’s online portal and paid ₹583 for the booking. He received a confirmation email stating that his booking was confirmed.
However, upon arriving at the hotel, the management denied him accommodation despite the booking confirmation showing that the room had been reserved at Hotel Vijay, Surat. Left stranded, Kardak had to book another hotel at additional expense. He later filed a complaint against OYO and Hotel Vijay before the consumer commission.
Despite being sent legal notices, OYO did not respond to the complaint. Meanwhile, hotel Vijay, in its reply, argued that the complaint was false, frivolous, and not maintainable as there was no cause of action against the hotel. The hotel claimed that the complainant had paid the booking amount to OYO, but the amount was not transferred to the hotel.
“OYO had not paid the hotel for the last 5–6 months. Also OYO was overbooking rooms and, at times, making fake bookings and hence in such a situation the hotel was not responsible for the complainant’s inconvenience as the issues arose from OYO’s actions,”held the Hotel in its reply.
The commission however rejected the hotel’s arguments, stating: “The complainant is in no way concerned with the disputes between OYO and the hotel. The hotel was obligated to provide the room and agreed-upon services to the complainant, which it failed to do.”
It further emphasized that the principle of ‘Atithi Devo Bhava’ requires service providers to offer the best possible services to their customers. It was both the moral and legal duty of the hotel to act politely and provide good service to the complainant. Unfortunately, the hotel failed in its duty.”
