Delhi Consumer Commission Rules COVID-19 Flight Cancellation Does Not Constitute Deficiency in Service

Introduction

In a recent decision that underscores the limits of consumer liability in unprecedented circumstances, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has dismissed an appeal challenging the handling of a flight cancellation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The case, Har Mohan Singh v. Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (First Appeal No. 377/2023), decided on January 5, 2026, involved a traveler who booked a return flight from the USA to Delhi through online platform Make My Trip for Korean Airlines. The return leg, scheduled for May 26, 2020, was canceled amid global lockdown restrictions, leading to an extended stay abroad and claims for compensation. The bench, comprising Hon'ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Hon'ble Bimla Kumari (Member, Female), upheld the district commission's order, ruling that the cancellation did not amount to a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This verdict reinforces the role of force majeure events like pandemics in excusing service providers from full liability, particularly for facilitators like booking agencies, and has implications for lingering post-COVID travel disputes.

The appellant, Har Mohan Singh, argued for refunds and compensation for additional expenses, including a 27-day extended stay in the USA. Respondents Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. and its CEO Deep Kalra defended their actions, emphasizing their intermediary status and compliance with Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) guidelines. Korean Airlines, the third respondent, did not actively participate. This ruling aligns with broader judicial trends post-2020, where courts have balanced consumer rights against the extraordinary disruptions caused by the pandemic, as highlighted in news reports such as "COVID-19 Flight Cancellation Not Deficiency In Service: Delhi State Consumer Commission," which noted the commission's focus on regulatory compliance over punitive measures.

Case Background

The dispute originated from a booking made by Har Mohan Singh, a resident of Dilshad Garden, Delhi, for international travel disrupted by the escalating COVID-19 crisis. On March 2, 2020—mere weeks before India imposed nationwide lockdowns—Singh booked a confirmed round-trip ticket via Make My Trip (Respondent No. 1) for Korean Airlines (Respondent No. 3). The itinerary covered Delhi to Los Angeles (LAX, USA) on March 2, 2020, with a return from LAX to Delhi on May 26, 2020, under booking ID NN 2911652538796 and e-ticket No. 180-3319184853. Singh successfully traveled to the USA as planned.

However, by May 26, 2020, the global aviation landscape had transformed due to the pandemic. International flights were grounded under government directives, and Korean Airlines canceled the return flight without prior intimation to Singh, according to his complaint. Stranded abroad, Singh endured an additional 27 days in the USA, from May 26 to June 22, 2020, before securing a seat on an Indian government-operated Vande Bharat Mission flight—an initiative launched to repatriate stranded Indians. Singh claimed he repeatedly contacted Make My Trip and Korean Airlines via emails and calls, receiving assurances of refunds that ultimately materialized only partially.

The core events unfolded against the backdrop of India's stringent COVID-19 response: a complete lockdown from March 25, 2020, extended into May, which suspended all non-essential international travel. The Vande Bharat Mission, initiated on May 7, 2020, prioritized government-chartered flights for citizens, but private carriers like Korean Airlines were barred from operating. Singh filed a consumer complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on August 1, 2023, seeking a total of Rs. 3,89,654, including Rs. 58,006 for the ticket value and Rs. 1,46,000 as compensation for mental agony, extra accommodation, and other expenses. He also demanded Rs. 50,000 in litigation costs.

The district commission dismissed the complaint on May 11, 2023, finding no deficiency in service and upholding the partial refund of Rs. 27,275 provided by Make My Trip, which deducted non-refundable portions per DGCA rules. Aggrieved, Singh appealed to the SCDRC on August 1, 2023, with hearings concluding on December 4, 2025. The case timeline reflects the protracted nature of such disputes, delayed by the pandemic's aftermath and procedural backlogs in consumer forums.

The primary legal questions centered on: (1) Whether the cancellation and lack of communication constituted a deficiency in service attributable to the booking platform or airline; (2) The applicability of pre-pandemic DGCA guidelines versus pandemic-specific relief; and (3) Liability for consequential damages like extended stay costs in a force majeure scenario.

Arguments Presented

The appellant, represented initially by counsel S.K. Verma and later appearing in person, built his case on allegations of negligence and breach of contract. Singh contended that Respondents 1 and 2 (Make My Trip and its CEO) failed to inform him of the cancellation or alternative options, such as the Vande Bharat Scheme, exacerbating his ordeal. He highlighted the absence of timely communication despite his proactive outreach, claiming this amounted to unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act. For the airline (Respondent No. 3), Singh argued that the cancellation without notice violated carrier obligations, entitling him to a full refund plus compensation for the 27-day extension, which incurred hotel stays, meals, and emotional distress. In evidence, Singh filed an affidavit supporting his claims and additional affidavits from witnesses Amarjeet Singh and Gagandeep Kaur, detailing the lack of support. He disputed the partial refund, insisting the entire ticket value (Rs. 58,006) plus Rs. 1,46,000 in damages and Rs. 1,95,648 in interest (at 18% from November 1, 2020) were due. Singh denied binding user agreements, arguing they could not override consumer rights in emergencies.

In rejoinder, Singh admitted receiving Rs. 27,275 post a December 19, 2020, demand notice but rejected the deductions as unjust, especially given the pandemic's unforeseen nature. He pressed that the district commission overlooked witness evidence and exaggerated the respondents' compliance claims.

Respondents 1 and 2 (Make My Trip and Deep Kalra) filed a joint written statement, vehemently denying liability and accusing Singh of filing the complaint mala fide to extract undue money. They positioned themselves as mere facilitators in the booking process, with no operational control over flights—that rested solely with Korean Airlines. Admitting the booking, they confirmed issuing a partial refund of Rs. 27,275, which covered refundable portions after deducting Rs. 29,777 for the utilized outbound ticket and a non-refundable convenience fee of Rs. 399, per their user agreement and cancellation policy accepted by Singh at booking. They invoked the terms and conditions, which explicitly outlined refund procedures aligned with DGCA's Civil Aviation Requirements dated May 22, 2008.

Make My Trip argued territorial jurisdiction flaws but primarily contended that pandemic-induced cancellations were force majeure events beyond their purview. They asserted no deficiency in service, as they promptly processed refunds upon request, and the Vande Bharat Scheme was a government initiative outside their scope. In their affidavit by Assistant Manager S. Sreesh, they supported these averments, emphasizing Singh's consent to policies that shielded intermediaries from airline-specific liabilities. Respondent No. 3 (Korean Airlines), represented by counsel, participated minimally; their right to file a reply was closed on December 16, 2024.

Both sides submitted written arguments, with respondents urging dismissal and exemplary costs for the allegedly frivolous appeal.

Legal Analysis

The SCDRC's reasoning hinged on distinguishing between routine service deficiencies and those arising from global crises, applying established consumer law principles while referencing key precedents and regulations. Central to the analysis was the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly Sections 2(9) and 2(47), defining "deficiency in service" and "unfair trade practice." The commission clarified that not every disruption equates to deficiency; external factors like pandemics must be evaluated contextually.

A pivotal reference was the Supreme Court's decision in Pravasi Legal Cell and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (MANU/SC/0732/2020), which directed full refunds without cancellation fees for tickets booked after the lockdown's onset (March 25, 2020). However, the bench noted Singh's booking predated this, rendering the case governed by pre-existing DGCA guidelines from May 22, 2008. These require refunds for cancellations but permit deductions for non-refundable elements, such as fees and utilized segments—precisely what occurred here. The commission emphasized: "The process of refund has to be done as per the Civil Aviation Requirements issued by the DGCA dated 22.05.08."

The ruling delineated the roles of parties: Airlines bear operational risks, while platforms like Make My Trip act as facilitators without vicarious liability for carrier decisions. This aligns with precedents like Bengaluru International Airport Ltd. v. Union of India (though not directly cited, analogous in intermediary liability) and consumer forum decisions post-COVID, where courts have consistently held pandemics as force majeure under contract law (Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, impliedly). The bench rejected claims of inadequate notice, as government bans obviated airline discretion, and Vande Bharat was a public scheme not mandating private entity involvement.

Distinctions were drawn between quashing excessive claims and affirming basic rights: Singh's demand for compensation lacked evidentiary support for quantum, differing from proven direct losses. The analysis avoided speculation, grounding in record evidence, and integrated the other source's headline to contextualize the decision's resonance in media, noting it as a "notable clarification" for travel sector liabilities.

Broader principles invoked included the doctrine of impossibility under Section 56, excusing performance in pandemics, and the UCP Act's intent to protect consumers without imposing undue burdens on service providers during crises. No new precedents were set, but the judgment reinforces Travel Agents Association of India v. Ministry of Civil Aviation trends, prioritizing regulatory adherence over ad hoc compensation.

Key Observations

The judgment extracts several pivotal observations that encapsulate the commission's rationale, providing direct insights into its application of law:

• On the applicability of Supreme Court directives: "In the present case, the Complainant has booked his ticket prior to the Lockdown and thus his case is not covered under the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Pravasi Legal Cell and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in Manu/SC/0732/2020."

• Regarding refund compliance: "As per the said guidelines [DGCA], the Complainant has been paid Rs. 27,275/- after deducting the non-refundable amount from the price paid by the Complainant for return ticket."

• On the absence of deficiency: "It is to be noted that the flight was cancelled by the Korean Airlines as the same was not permissible on account of Covid pandemic therefore we do not see any deficiency on the part of airlines."

• Emphasizing the facilitator's role: "It is clear from the record the Respondent is merely a travel facilitator and has no control over the operation or cancellation of flights, which in the present case is the sole discretion of the Korean Airlines."

• Dismissing exaggerated claims: "The Appellant has not mentioned any cogent grounds or evidence to show as to how is he entitled to the compensation as sought in the present Appeal."

These quotes, attributed to the full bench, highlight the judgment's focus on factual alignment with regulations over emotional appeals.

Court's Decision

The SCDRC unequivocally dismissed the appeal, affirming the district commission's May 11, 2023, order with no costs imposed. The final language states: "Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs." All pending applications were disposed of, and the judgment was ordered uploaded on the commission's website.

Practically, this means Singh receives no further refund or compensation beyond the Rs. 27,275 already paid, closing his claim. The decision orders no additional actions against respondents, preserving the status quo.

Implications are significant for future cases. It solidifies that COVID-19 cancellations, when compliant with DGCA rules, do not trigger deficiency findings, shielding airlines and platforms from cascading liabilities for indirect harms like extended stays—absent proof of negligence. For legal professionals, this precedent aids in advising clients on force majeure clauses in travel contracts, potentially reducing frivolous claims in consumer forums. Post-pandemic, with aviation recovering, it may deter similar suits for bookings before March 2020, streamlining dispute resolution.

On a systemic level, the ruling promotes regulatory harmony between consumer protection and aviation policy, influencing bodies like the DGCA to refine guidelines. It may impact the travel industry by affirming intermediary protections, encouraging digital platforms to emphasize user agreements. For stranded travelers, it underscores the need for comprehensive insurance and early awareness of government schemes like Vande Bharat. Overall, this 2026 decision, amid evolving case law, provides closure to a subset of COVID-era disputes, balancing equity with practicality in India's consumer justice framework.