District Commission Holds Travel Company Liable For Denying Refund & Discriminatory Treatment

Brief Facts:

The complainant, a retired Colonel, booked a 16-day American tour for himself and his wife through Fortune Destination Management Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party), based on an advertisement. The tour was scheduled for May 5, 2020, with a cost of Rs.3,20,000 per person. At the time of booking, he paid an advance of Rs.94,250 per person, totaling Rs.1,88,500/. The trip was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite repeated requests, the opposite party refused to refund the amount, instead issued a credit shell certificate of 1,49,792/- in the complainant's name, stating that the amount was deposited in the travel agency's account and could be used for a future American tour within five years.

According to the complainant, he had personally borne the expenses for obtaining his visa, yet the agency deducted a visa fee of 23,040 from the advance. It was stated that the opposite party settled similar complaints with other customers but refused to refund the complainant.

The complainant sent a legal notice seeking a refund of 1,65,510/- along with 12% interest and compensation. Since the opposite party did not respond, the complainant filed a complaint before the District consumer commission

Contention of the Opposite Party:

The second opposite party (Company) and third opposite party (Manager) , who signed the Credit Shell Certificate, respectively, were served with notice but failed to file their written versions within the statutory period

The first opposite party Managing Director argued that the tour was cancelled due to the CoVID-19 pandemic, which was beyond the company's control. He contended that company had already spent the amount on airfare, accommodation, transportation, and other arrangements with no refunds received from service providers and as per the tour package terms and conditions, no refund is due in such circumstances.

The Opposite Party No. 1 pointed out that despite no contractual obligations, the company issued a Credit Shell Certificate to the complainant, deducting only visa processing charges. He further stated that the complainant without surrendering the credit shell certificate of 1,49,792/- , filed the complaint. The opposite party argued that there is no deficiency in service, and the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

Observation by the Commission:

The Commission observed that the opposite parties has already settled similar complaints with other customers but refused to refund the complainant, amounts to discriminatory treatment and unfair trade practice. The Commission observed that opposite party did not comply the direction passed by the Supreme Court in Pravasi Legal Cell Vs Union of India that airlines must refund ticket amounts for cancelled flights due to COVID-19.

The Commission further observed that the complainant, a retired Colonel who served the nation, trusted the opposite party with his hard-earned money to fulfil a long-cherished dream of traveling with his wife. Instead of honoring his trust, the opposite parties failed to provide the promised service and unilaterally withheld his rightful refund, causing him unnecessary stress and hardship. Travel is meant to create memories, not burdens, and it is disheartening that a senior citizen was forced to battle for what was legally and ethically his.

Therefore, the Commission held that the opposite parties were deficient in their services and directed the Opposite Parties to refund 1,65,510/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

Click Here To Read/Download Order