Back
Hamirpur Consumer Commission Directs to Compensate Groom for Sudden and Undisclosed Flight Cancellation
In a significant ruling, the held () accountable for a . The consumer court directed the online travel agency to compensate a traveller who was left stranded at Leh Airport, missing critical events due to an uncommunicated flight cancellation.
The Wedding Day Nightmare
The complainant, Nitin Thakur, had booked a flight from Leh to New Delhi through for his own wedding. Despite paying for the ticket in advance, he arrived at the airport only to discover that the flight had been cancelled. With no prior notification via email or SMS, and facing the time-sensitive pressure of his own pre-scheduled marriage, the complainant was forced to hire a commercial taxi to traverse the mountainous terrain, incurring an additional expense of ₹18,000.
Arguments from the Parties
The complainant argued that both the travel portal and the airline failed to inform him of the cancellation, causing him immense physical and emotional hardship. In its defense, contended that it acted solely as an intermediary and that the flight cancellation was a unilateral decision by the carrier, , which had filed for bankruptcy. The company maintained that it held no for the airline's operational failures and could only process refunds once the funds were released by the carrier.
Legal Analysis and Court Findings
The Commission rejected the portal's argument, noting that the booking was accepted after the airline had already suspended operations. The bench, led by President Hemanshu Mishra, emphasized that the failure to serve as an effective link between the consumer and the airline breached the expected from an online travel platform.
The court observed that the travel agency's inaction regarding communication was not merely an operational oversight but a failure of fundamental professional responsibility.
Key Observations
-
"Since Opposite Party No. 2 filed for on , and Opposite Party No. 1 subsequently accepted the booking consideration and issued the e-ticket to the Complainant on , the rests squarely upon Opposite Party No. 1."
-
"This failure to communicate a foreseeable cancellation well in advance constitutes an independent, severe omission of professional duty and a ."
-
"The severe , acute anxiety, and sheer helplessness suffered by a groom who discovers at a high-altitude airport that his flight stands cancelled on the eve of his own wedding cannot be overlooked."
-
"We hold that Opposite Party No. 1 is primarily liable to refund the booking amount to the Complainant, and it retains the right to seek recovery by pursuing its claim before the ."
The Final Verdict
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered to refund the original ticket amount of ₹14,261 within 45 days. Additionally, the court awarded ₹25,000 for , alongside ₹4,000 for . Failure to meet the payment deadline will result in an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint until full realization. This ruling reinforces the accountability of online booking platforms in protecting consumer interests, particularly when they facilitate transactions during periods of airline instability.
