National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Parboth Chander Bali vs Managing Director, Airbnb India ... on 31 May, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2660 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 17/07/2019 in Appeal No. 424/2019 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. PARBOTH CHANDER BALI 121-A, KRISHNA SQUARE II, BATALA ROAD, AMRITSAR-143001 PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, AIRBNB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 4TH FLOOR, STATESMAN HOUSE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : FOR THE PETITIONER : MR.SATYA KAM SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR.ROHIT SHANKAR, ADVOCATE
Dated : 31 May 2024 ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against the order dated 17.07.2019, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('State Commission') in FA No. 424/2019 wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar, ('the District Forum') wherein the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the Petitioner/Complainant.
2. There is 21 days delay in filing this Revision Petition and for the reasons stated in IA No. 4565/2022, the delay is condoned.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that on 1.2.2019, he and his wife booked a room with the Opposite Party (OP) during a pilgrimage to Kumbh Mela 2019 in Prayagraj. The room was booked for one day from 06.02.2019 to 07.02.2019 and Rs.801.59 was paid as one-day room rent online in advance. The room was advertised as having an elevator, a crucial feature as the Complainant's wife had undergone Total Knee Replacement (TKR) surgery and could not climb stairs. Upon arrival on 06.02.2019, he discovered that the room was in a slum area, with the main sewer choked, causing the road to be submerged in filthy water. It was an old dilapidated building, unsafe for accommodation. The room was allocated was on the 2nd floor, accessible only by a narrow, uneven staircase and without elevator contrary to what was advertised. The room was infested with mosquitoes due to the surrounding sewer water making it uninhabitable. He immediately vacated the room and left the location and managed alternative accommodation later in the day. As the complainant and his wife were occupied with pilgrimage activities until 09.02.2019, on 9.2.2019, he filed a claim for a refund with the OP, which was forwarded to the host and subsequently denied. After further correspondence, the OP refused any resolution, citing a 24-hour claim filing requirement, which was not disclosed at the time of booking. On 12.02.2019, he served a notice to the OP, for which no reply was given. The OP's refusal to refund the amount paid for the room amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He suffered financial loss and mental harassment due to the misrepresentation and subsequent refusal of the OP to resolve the issue. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before District Forum seeking payment compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment and agony; payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation; refund of Rs.801.59 paid as room rent; directive to OP to stop and prevent illegal renting of residential properties as hotels/guest houses/inns without proper licenses under relevant laws; and verification of host properties before listing and ensuring proper identification of all guests to prevent serious crimes.
4. The OP did not appear before the District Forum and he was proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum.
5. The District Forum, vide Order dated 29.05.2019, allowed the complaint ex-parte with the following observations:
"6. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as opposite party, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the complaint and thereby the opposite party impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant, which further shows that the opposite party had no defence to offer for contesting the case of the complainant. The very fact that opposite party has not provided the service as assured by them while booking as the customer avails the online booking/service for their convenience. But in the case in hand the complainant by booking online room put himself in inconvenience as he along with his wife has run from pillar to post for taking another room and were successful in taking the room in the evening of 6.2.2019. The act and conduct of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service.
7. Consequently we allow the instant complaint ex-parte with directions to opposite party to refund Rs.801.59 paise as booking charges for the room Opposite party is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3000/- while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs.2000/-, Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; failing which, complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room."
6. It needs to be mentioned that the Opposite Party did not file any Appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 29.05.2019.
7. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed the First Appeal No.424 of 2019 against the order of the District Forum dated 29.05.2019 for enhancement of compensation and the State Commission, vide Order dated 17.07.2019 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum with the following observations:
"7. We have carefully examined and gone through the records of the case as none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite repeated calls.
8. Admittedly, it is observed that only amount of Rs.801.59 is involved in the present case. District Forum has rightly awarded Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. It needs to be mentioned that complainant is a chronic/habitual of filing such complaints. Today three appeals received by Post filed by him are listed before this Bench. Earlier also complainant filed such type of frivolous complaints. The compensation awarded by the District Forum is adequate.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal to be heard on merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine."
8. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the present Revision Petition against the order of the State Commission dated 29.05.2019 with the following prayers:
"i. Direct Hon'ble SCDRC to expunge unwanted remarks against petitioner/Complainant from its impugned order dated 17/07/2019 passed in the First Appeal No. A/424/2019.
ii. Allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order of state Commission in A/424/2018 dated 17/07/2019.
iii. Revise impugned order of Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in A/424/2019 dated 17/07/2019 in light of all of the prayers made in original Complaint registered as No. CC/142/2019 BY passing a speaking order.
iv. Grant the relief as prayed in the original complaint before DCDRC as well as before Punjab SCDRC by petitioner/Complainants and direct Respondent/ Opposite Party to stop immediately illegal activities.
v. Grant relief to award petitioner/ Complainants the Cost of litigation and compensation.
vi. Any other orders in the interest of justice."
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant reiterated the grounds taken in the Revision Petition and argued that due to lack of communication, the Petitioner/Complainant did not appear before the State Commission and the State Commission passed the impugned order in his absence. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is not appropriate and sought to enhance the compensation as claimed by him in the complaint filed before the District Forum and expunge the remarks passed by the State Commission in the impugned order. He therefore sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/OP argued in favour of the concurrent findings of the lower fora below. He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition with costs. He has relied upon the following judgments:
a. Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors., AIR (2022) SC 577;
b. Rubi Chandra Dutta vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (11) SCC 269.
11. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission, and rendered thoughtful considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both Parties.
12. It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which is pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. From the facts emerged and the arguments made, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction. In this regard, I rely upon the decision 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under: -
"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the OP-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. ....."
14. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:-
As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
15. Based on the discussion above, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity with the reasoned orders passed by the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission. Therefore, the present Revision Petition is dismissed.
16. There shall be no order as to costs. All other pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER