Back
Consumer Commission Rules for Refund, Penalties in Travel Case
In a ruling that reinforces consumer protections in the travel sector, has directed Malaysia Airlines to refund ₹65,802 plus 6% interest per annum to a local resident whose international flight tickets were cancelled amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The commission also imposed ₹25,000 in costs on online travel agency MakeMyTrip for providing and issuing , while ordering both entities to jointly pay ₹30,000 in compensation for the complainant's and harassment. Dated , this decision in highlights the accountability of airlines and intermediaries even during unprecedented disruptions like the global health crisis.
The case underscores persistent issues in refund processing for pandemic-related cancellations, a problem that plagued millions of passengers worldwide. With aviation authorities issuing flexibility policies, the commission's emphasis on preventing consumers from being "shuttled" between service providers offers valuable guidance for legal practitioners handling similar disputes.
Case Background: A Wedding Gift Disrupted by Pandemic
The dispute originated in when Karan Pradeep, a Delhi resident, booked two round-trip tickets on MakeMyTrip for his brother and sister-in-law. Priced at ₹65,802, the tickets were intended as a wedding gift for travel from Delhi to Kuala Lumpur and Manila between . This timing coincided with the explosive spread of COVID-19, particularly lockdown measures in the Philippines that grounded flights.
Malaysia Airlines responded to the crisis by introducing its “Ultimate Flexibility Ticket Change Policy,” which promised unlimited date changes, fee waivers, and other relaxations. Such measures were part of a broader industry response; globally, over 100 million tickets were cancelled in early 2020, leading to billions in refund claims. In India, the mandated full refunds for cancellations within airline control, but clauses often complicated matters.
Pradeep's plans unraveled as MakeMyTrip initially refused rescheduling requests, claiming ignorance of the airline's policy. He eventually agreed to cancel the Passenger Name Record (PNR) after assurances of a full refund. A , email from MakeMyTrip confirmed initiation of the ₹65,802 refund, promising processing within 60-90 days. However, months passed without payment, thrusting Pradeep into a cycle of communications between the OTA and airline.
The Complaint and Initial Assurances
Frustrated by the delay, Pradeep attempted to utilize Malaysia Airlines' flexibility options, including rebooking to Bali. These were rejected, with the airline directing him back to MakeMyTrip. He filed his complaint on , before the , alleging , false promises, and harassment.
The commission noted the pattern of buck-passing:
"It is seen that the complainant was assured that he would receive the refund within sixty to ninety days but as no refund was forthcoming complainant tried to avail Ultimate Flexibility Ticket Change Policy and Open Ticket Flexibility Policy offered by OP-2 (Malaysia Airlines) but the same was declined stating that Complainant would have to approach via OP-1 (MakeMyTrip). OP-2 (the airline) is found to be deficient in service for not allowing the complainant to book tickets to Bali directly as it was OP-2 who had not refunded the complainant’s amount to OP-1 (MakeMyTrip) and had instead offered alternate arrangements."
This quote captures the essence of the consumer's ordeal, a common grievance in post-COVID travel litigation.
Respondents' Contentions
MakeMyTrip contested the complaint on procedural grounds, arguing lack of territorial jurisdiction and that it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period under the . Substantively, it claimed the tickets were non-refundable and positioned itself as a mere intermediary without liability for the airline's actions.
Malaysia Airlines echoed defenses, attributing cancellation to uncontrollable pandemic factors. Both argued that their policies were followed, and any delays were industry-wide.
Commission's Key Findings on Jurisdiction and Merits
Rejecting procedural objections, the commission upheld jurisdiction since Pradeep resided in South Delhi. On limitation, it invoked the 's extension in , which paused deadlines during the pandemic, rendering the 2023 filing timely.
On merits, the panel acknowledged pandemic cancellations as beyond control but ruled:
"while pandemic-related cancellations were beyond the airline’s control, the airline could not retain the amount paid when the passengers were not at fault."
It lambasted MakeMyTrip:
"We are also of the opinion that OP-1(MakeMyTrip) cannot wash off its liability by stating that it is merely a facilitator as complainant had taken the services of OP-1 to book the tickets of OP-2’s airlines, who actually failed to facilitate the complainant. Even if, we take into consideration the Covid 19 situation, it was unfair on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 to make the complainant shuttle between the OPs for his rightful refund or travel for which he had already paid."
This reasoning aligns with defining , and on . It pierces the intermediary veil, treating OTAs as full-service providers when assurances are given.
Directions and Penalties Imposed
The order is precise: - Malaysia Airlines: Refund ₹65,802 + 6% interest from . - MakeMyTrip: ₹25,000 costs for / . - Both : ₹30,000 compensation for . Payments due within three months, else 8% interest accrues.
Legal Principles at Play
This ruling navigates key doctrines. Under consumer law, airlines bear primary refund liability per DGCA circulars (e.g., ), but OTAs share responsibility if they process bookings and communicate policies. The decision contrasts with intermediary protections, prioritizing consumer-specific statutes.
The SC's limitation extension remains pivotal; without it, many claims would be barred. Similar precedents include orders against IndiGo and SpiceJet for refund delays, signaling a pro-consumer tilt in forums.
Implications for Travel Industry and Consumer Law
For legal professionals, this case is a playbook for pandemic-era claims. It warns airlines against retaining fares post-cancellation and OTAs against disclaiming liability after providing assurances. With thousands of unresolved refunds ( estimates $25B globally), expect surges in litigation.
Practitioners should advise clients to screenshot emails/policies and file promptly, leveraging extensions. OTAs may revise terms to clarify roles, while airlines could enhance direct refund portals. Broader impacts include bolstering trust in India's consumer forums, which handled 1.5M+ cases in 2023, and influencing policy—potentially stricter DGCA/ guidelines.
In aviation law, it echoes global trends: EU courts fining Ryanair for delays, penalizing refunds lapses. Indian lawyers can cite this for negotiations, reducing court burdens.
Conclusion: Strengthening Passenger Rights
The Karan Pradeep ruling exemplifies consumer forums' role in rectifying power imbalances. By mandating refunds, costs, and compensation, it ensures that even does not excuse poor service. As travel rebounds, this precedent will guide stakeholders toward fairer practices, protecting passengers from the "shuttling" trap and affirming that payment demands delivery—or restitution.
