Consumer forum slaps Rs 85,000 fine on travel firm for deficiency of service

HYDERABAD: What was supposed to be a memorable trip for a newly-wedded couple, ended up in a nightmare. A travel company’s goof-up saw them shell down Rs 44,000 over and above the intended tour budget.

K.S. Sriharsha, a software employee from Sainikpuri, approached the Hyderabad district consumer forum-I complaining against online travel firm, MakeMyTrip, for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices.

The forum ordered it to refund Rs 85,984 as compensation along with Rs 25,000 for causing mental agony and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.

Sriharsha and his wife booked a holiday package covering Shimla, Manali and Chandigarh on MakeMyTrip from January 2-9, 2022. They paid Rs 44,407 for the total package.

However, they met with an accident near Markand while on their way to Manali on January 4. Both suffered injuries and were treated in a nearby primary health centre. According to the complaint that was filed before the forum on March 3, the couple was called for interrogation along with the car driver and they had to stay overnight in Bilaspur. On completion of the formalities and treatment, they wanted to return to Hyderabad. Since the travel firm did not cooperate in booking return flight tickets, they had to stay in a hotel in Chandigarh.

After returning to Hyderabad, the complainant asked the travel firm to refund the money and the additional expenses incurred by him. The company only refunded Rs 4,911. Aggrieved by the blunt refusal, Sriharsha approached the forum.

Meanwhile, MakeMyTrip denied any deficiency of service. The firm said that other than the court of NCR Delhi, no other court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as per the terms and conditions of the user agreement. It was further averred that the complaint does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer dispute’.

The consumer forum held that it was the responsibility of the firm to assist its customer and provide him with the best facilities throughout the tour, which it had failed to do.

“There is no documentary evidence to show that the user agreement was executed and signed by the parties. With regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction and dispute not being ‘consumer dispute’, it is a settled law that the commission has jurisdiction as per Section 34(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,” the forum ruled.