Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1247
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
MAKE MY TRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
DR. S. NAGARAJAN – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 3233 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS. VASUDHA ARORA
For the Respondents: MR. BIBEK TRIPATHI, MR. Y. LOKESH
The appeal ruled that the absence of timely visa acquisition and failure to cancel as per contract terms absolves the service provider from refund obligations.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21 - Revision Petition against order of State Commission directing refund for deficiency in service - Petitioner arranged for booking without confirmed visa but contends that complaint for refund arises from respondent’s failure to cancel booking within stipulated time - The complainant's insistence on refund led to the State Commission's order, which was challenged by the Petitioner. (Paras 1, 6, 15)
(B) Deficiency in Service - The court determined that the respondent’s failure to secure a visa and timely cancellation leads to the conclusion that no deficiency in service exists on the Petitioner’s part. (Paras 5, 14)
Facts of the case:
Complainant booked an international tour for six family members and paid Rs.90,000. After failing to obtain visas, the Complainant sought a full refund, which was denied by the Petitioner based on their cancellation policy. (Paras 4, 11)
Findings of Court:
The Petitioner acted within their rights per cancellation terms, as refusal to refund cited the contractual agreement regarding service conditions linked to visa acquisition. Court found no merit in State Commission's opposition to booking and payment policy. (Paras 14, 15)
Issues: Whether service deficiency occurred due to the Opposite Party's confirmations and subsequent refusal to refund after visa issues. (Paras 8.1, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the contractual terms regarding cancellations were binding, emphasizing that bookings require timely cancellation or they stand as forfeited. The Respondent’s timing of cancellation and his obligation to secure visas were both considered. (Paras 15, 16)
Result: Order of State Commission set aside; complaint dismissed, reinforcing the cancellation terms signed by both parties. (Paras 15, 16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts concerning the booking and cancellation process. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding service and refund. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's evaluation of service terms and arguments. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's conclusion on contractual obligations and service cancellation. (Para 15) |
| 5. final decision and dismissal of complaint. (Para 16) |
ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , against the order dated 02.04.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 885 of 2011 in which order dated 20.07.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mylapore, Chennai (North), (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 216 of 2010 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 02.04.2014 of the State Commission.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Respondent before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission in FA No. 885 of 2011 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No. 216 of 2010.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 30.01.2015. Parties filed Written Arguments on 13.04.2021 (Petitioner) and 02.04.2024 (Respondent) respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -
(i) The Complainant/Respondent along with his five family members wanted to tour Europe during August, 2010 and approached the Opposite Party/Petitioner to arrange tickets for them. As per the request of the Opposite Party, Complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- through credit card on 15.06.2010 and another sum of Rs.50,000/- by wire transfer on 30.06.2010, totaling of Rs.90,000/- towards advance and handed over all the passports of all the persons to the Opposite Party for booking tickets.
(ii) The Complainant made arrangements to obtain Visa for their tour but unfortunately all the passengers could not obtain Visa and they were obliged to cancel the said tour. On 29.07.2010, Complainant intimated the Opposite Party about the cancellation of the tour and demanded the refund of the advance sum of Rs.90,000/-.
(iii) Opposite Party utilized the said amount for making hotel bookings in London without the instructions of the Complainant and even without the confirmation of the tickets and Visa. On 13.08.2010, Complainant’s wife Mrs. Shanti Nagarajan through an e-mail to the Opposite Party calling upon them to refund the said amount but Opposite Party failed and neglected to refund the said sum of Rs.90,000/-.
(iv) Complainant alleged that the act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. On 26.08.2010, Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite party calling upon them to refund the said sum of Rs.90,000/- together with interest @18% per annum from 29.07.2010 till date. Opposite Party acknowledged the receipt of legal notice and on 06.09.2010, sent a reply requesting for booking ID/booking reference no. through which transaction was made for further action. On 20.09.2010, Complainant furnished the booking ID No. through his advocate by fax but Opposite Party neither complied with the demand contained in the legal notice nor sent any reply thereto till date. Hence, the complaint was filed.
5. Vide Order dated 20.07.2011, in the CC no. 216 of 2010 the District Commission has dismissed the complaint and passed the following order:
“The complainant has miserably failed to prove the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, then the complainant is not e
