* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on: 23.05.2025 + RFA(COMM) 479/2024 M/S K HOME APPLIANCES .....Appellant versus M/S MARVS TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

.....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellant : Mr Nipun Katyal with Mr Dhananjai Shekhawat and Mr Archit Jain, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr Sahil Mongia, Ms Sanjana Samor and Mr Yash Yadav, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1. The present Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned District Court (Commercial Court-2), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (‘District Court’) in CS (Comm) No. 555 of 2021 (‘Suit’) filed by Appellant / M/s K Home Appliances. Appellant has assailed the impugned judgement on the ground that the learned District Court dismissed the Suit of Appellant holding that there was no privity of contract between Appellant and Respondent No.1 / M/s Marvs Travel India Pvt. Ltd. and held that M/s Marvs Travels Australia Pvt. Ltd. (‘MTG’) was the necessary party, without considering the correspondence exchanged between Appellant and Respondent No. 1.

2. The learned District Court has further held that Respondent No. 1 was the agent of MTG. Since there is no privity of contract between Appellant and Respondent No. 1, the Suit was dismissed holding that Appellant was not entitled to recover any amount from Respondent No. 1. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, Appellant has preferred the present Appeal, inter alia, praying for the following relief:

a. set aside the judgement and final order dated

12.08.2024 passed by the Ld. District Court (Comm- 02), West, TisHazari Courts, in CS (Comm.)

555/2021; and b. decree the Suit in terms of the reliefs claim therein;

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

4. Appellant has contended that in November 2019, Appellant intended to reward its distributors, agents, and authorized dealers by organizing a group trip to Australia for 63 individuals. For this purpose, Appellant arranged a fully sponsored week-long tour to Australia as a gesture to boost the morale and motivation of its business associates.

5. For the purpose of arranging a seamless tour, Appellant reached out to Mr. Jatin Chaudhary of Plan My Tours (‘PMT’), who further introduced Appellant to Mr. Sanam Nijhawan / Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is a Director and operator of Respondent No. 1 and he presented himself as a market leader in the tours and travel industry and assured Appellant that he had experience in handling large international tours to various countries including Australia.

6. Respondent No. 2 further informed Appellant that his brother operates a sister concern of Respondent No. 1 in Australia being MTG.

7. On 29.11.2019, after negotiations between Appellant, Respondent No. 1 and MTG, they reached a consensus on an amount of $1245 AUD per person to be paid by Appellant to Respondents for an all-inclusive trip to Australia from 6^th June 2020 to 12^th June 2020.

8. It is Appellant's case that in order to confirm the booking, Appellant paid an advance payment to the tune of ₹8,00,000 to Respondent No. 1 in its bank account.

9. Appellant was informed about the cancellation policy as follows:

 Cancellations made 40 days prior to travel will be fully refundable.

 Cancellations made within 30 days of travel or less will incur a charge of 25%.

 Cancellations made within less than 15 days of travel will be non-refundable.

10. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19, Appellant was compelled to cancel the planned tour to Australia on 25.03.2020 and demanded a full refund of ₹8,00,000/- paid to Respondent No. 1 as per the cancellation policy, which allowed Appellant to claim a full refund provided the trip was cancelled 40 days prior to the scheduled date of travel.

11. As no refund was received, Appellant filed a Suit before the learned District Court against Respondents without impleading MTG as a defe