Deficiency in Service and Consumer Protection: Ashish Arora v. Make My Trip Ltd.

Introduction

The case of Ashish Arora v. Make My Trip Ltd. was adjudicated by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Amritsar on February 21, 2022. The complainant, Mr. Ashish Arora, filed a complaint against Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. and Hotel Triund Regency, alleging deficiencies in service, malpractice, and unfair trade practices under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now covered under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019). The dispute arose from a failed hotel booking arranged by Make My Trip, which led to significant inconvenience and financial loss for the complainant and his family.

Summary of the Judgment

The Commission allowed the complaint, holding both opposite parties liable for deficiency in service. Make My Trip was directed to refund the amount of ₹1,894 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint. Additionally, the Commission awarded compensation of ₹10,000 for harassment and mental agony and ₹3,000 as litigation expenses. The judgment emphasized that Make My Trip, as a facilitator, failed to ensure the provision of the booked services, thereby causing undue hardship to the consumer.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Commission relied on the precedent set by Dr. Debmalya Majumder vs. Executive Officer, Cox & Kings Ltd. This case involved a similar scenario where a consumer faced deficiencies in service due to failed travel arrangements. The Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had held the service provider accountable for both refunding the amount and compensating for the inconvenience caused. This precedent underscored the responsibility of service providers to ensure the fulfillment of promised services, thereby influencing the current judgment.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal issue was whether Make My Trip, acting as a facilitator for hotel bookings, bore responsibility for the non-provision of the reserved rooms. The Commission analyzed the contractual obligations, highlighting that Make My Trip, upon confirming a booking and providing relevant details to the consumer, holds an obligation to ensure that the service provider (Hotel Triund Regency) fulfills the booking. The failure to allot the reserved rooms and the subsequent refusal to refund constituted a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission also considered the absence of opposition from Hotel Triund Regency, leading to an implied admission of fault.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the accountability of online service platforms like Make My Trip in ensuring that contracted services are rendered as promised. It sets a precedent that such intermediaries cannot absolve themselves of responsibility by merely acting as facilitators. Future cases involving similar disputes can rely on this judgment to hold service providers accountable for deficiencies, ensuring consumer protection in the digital marketplace.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Deficiency in Service: Under the Consumer Protection Act, a service is considered deficient if it fails to meet the standards or promises made by the service provider. In this case, the hotel booking service did not provide the reserved rooms as agreed.

Facilitator Role: A facilitator is an entity that arranges services on behalf of consumers but may not directly provide the service. However, facilitators like Make My Trip are still responsible for ensuring that the service providers they engage fulfill their obligations.

Implied Admission: When a party fails to appear or respond in a case, it can imply that they admit to the claims made against them. Here, Hotel Triund Regency’s absence led to an implied admission of fault.

Conclusion

The judgment in Ashish Arora v. Make My Trip Ltd. underscores the importance of accountability among online service facilitators. By holding Make My Trip liable for the deficiency in service, the Commission has reinforced consumer rights against service failures. This case serves as a critical reminder to digital platforms to ensure due diligence in service provision and to uphold their commitments to consumers, thereby fostering trust and reliability in online transactions.