An international travel firm has been ordered by the Kolkata District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to refund an advance payment of Rs 2 lakh to a customer whose 2020 tour to Australia and New Zealand was cancelled during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Alongside the full reimbursement, the consumer bench awarded the complainant Rs 20,000 in compensation and Rs 10,000 to cover litigation expenses, ruling that the agency’s failure to return the deposit amounted to negligence and a deficiency in service.
The order, passed on September 29 by a bench comprising commission president Manoj Kumar Rai and member Ashoka Guha Roy Bera, established that tour operators cannot withhold customer funds when services are called off, even when disruptions arise from extraordinary circumstances.
Background of the Dispute
The case originated from a booking for a 15-night, 16-day holiday package across Australia and New Zealand that was scheduled to begin on October 14, 2020. The customer paid an advance of Rs 2 lakh toward the package. However, the journey was subsequently cancelled because of international border closures, flight cancellations, and pandemic-related travel restrictions.
Following the cancellation, the customer approached the travel agency seeking a return of the money and received assurances that the sum would be refunded. Despite repeated reminders, personal visits to the agency’s office, and a formal legal notice issued on February 10, 2022, the company failed to return the advance.
The customer subsequently filed a complaint with the consumer commission in May 2022, citing unfair trade practices and service deficiency.
Rejection of Credit Voucher Defence
The travel company contested the proceedings before the commission, arguing that contractual provisions barred monetary refunds and noting that it had provided a credit voucher for future travel instead.
The commission rejected the agency’s arguments, confirming that the complainant was a bona fide consumer who had fully paid the required advance for services that were never delivered.
The bench observed that the agency took no constructive measures to remit the payment, emphasizing that processing refunds following service cancellations remains a primary obligation of any service provider. The ruling concluded that the company’s irresponsible conduct had subjected the consumer to avoidable financial disruption, reinforcing the principle that service providers must remain accountable for advance payments withheld without justification.
