Ludhiana Consumer Commission Penalizes Online Travel Firm and Hotel for Misleading Swimming Pool Advertisement
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ludhiana has imposed a significant penalty on an online travel booking company and a hotel located in Kufri, Himachal Pradesh, for engaging in unfair trade practices. This ruling came after a consumer complaint revealed that a hotel room booking, which prominently advertised a swimming pool facility on the online portal, did not include this amenity upon the guest's arrival.
Details of the Consumer Complaint and Booking Dispute
According to the official complaint filed with the commission, the incident dates back to June 24, 2022, when the complainant, Supreet Singh from Threeke in Ludhiana, booked three hotel rooms for the period of June 28 to June 30, 2022. The booking was made through the online travel portal, which displayed images and descriptions indicating the availability of a swimming pool. Supreet Singh paid a total of ₹30,306 for the rooms and an additional ₹20,000 for extra bedding, relying on these representations.
Upon arriving at the hotel on June 28, 2022, the family was shocked to discover that there was no swimming pool on the premises, contrary to what was advertised. Hotel officials admitted to the absence of a pool, offering only a jacuzzi as an alternative, and directed the complainant to contact the online booking company for resolution. Due to the peak tourist season and high demand, the family found themselves unable to relocate to another hotel, exacerbating their distress.
Multiple calls to the customer care service of the online travel company failed to yield a satisfactory response or provide alternative accommodation options. The complainant alleged significant mental agony and physical harassment as a direct result of this deficiency in service, highlighting the emotional and practical inconveniences faced during what was intended to be a relaxing family vacation.
Defenses Presented by the Online Travel Company and Hotel
In their written statements to the commission, the online travel booking company argued that its role was merely that of a facilitator, limited to providing confirmed bookings. The company asserted that it should not be held liable for any deficiencies or misrepresentations made by the hotel, claiming that the misleading images were uploaded by the hotel without proper verification.
Conversely, the hotel countered this defense by stating that the booking was based entirely on the representations made by the online travel company on its portal. The hotel maintained that it had not approved or confirmed these advertisements, shifting the blame back onto the booking platform for publishing inaccurate information.
Commission's Observations and Legal Ruling
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission carefully examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The commission observed that the images displayed on the online portal had a clear tendency to deceive gullible customers, thereby unjustly enriching the parties involved without delivering the promised facilities. It was noted that a thorough scrutiny of the evidence established that the misleading advertisement was published with the collusion and concurrence of both the online travel company and the hotel.
This conduct was held to constitute an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, which defines such practices as those that adopt unfair methods or deceptive practices to promote the sale, use, or supply of goods or services. As a result, the commission ruled that the complainant was entitled to compensation for the hardship endured.
Compensation Order and Penalties Imposed
The commission issued a decisive order, directing the opposite parties—the online travel booking company and the hotel—to jointly and severally pay a compensation of ₹50,000 to the complainant, Supreet Singh. This payment must be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Failure to comply with this directive will entitle the complainant to an interest rate of 8% per annum, calculated from the date of the order until the full payment is made.
This ruling underscores the importance of transparency and honesty in online advertising, particularly in the travel and hospitality sectors. It serves as a stern warning to businesses that engage in deceptive practices, reinforcing consumer rights and the legal recourse available to aggrieved parties under Indian consumer protection laws.
