Case Note:
A leading OTA vs Devraj Beharnani & Ors. on 22 January, 2024
SCC Online NCDRC 310
Facts of the Case
The complainant booked an international travel package with a leading online travel portal for himself and his grandchildren, costing INR 450,000. The package included flights, accommodations, meals, sightseeing, and travel insurance.
The tour operator failed to provide key travel documents (itinerary, tickets, hotel vouchers, and insurance) until the night before departure, causing severe inconvenience.
The complainant faced multiple issues during the trip –
- Delayed flights and last-minute route changes
- Uninformed hotel switches, leading to unexpected charges
- Cancelled sightseeing tours
- Lack of proper accommodation arrangements, resulting in the complainant personally paying for new bookings
- Travel insurance was never provided, despite prior assurances
The complainant, a senior citizen, suffered health complications during the trip due to the stress caused by the tour operator’s mismanagement.
Legal Issues
The Complainant sought –
- INR 450,000 refund for the package
- INR 50,00,000 compensation for mental and physical suffering
- INR 55,000 litigation costs
- INR 11,000 notice fees
The tour operator argued –
- They acted only as a facilitator and were not liable for airline delays or hotel unavailability.
- Some refunds were processed, and hotel changes were made due to availability issues.
- The State Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the tour operator claimed the cause of action didn’t arise in Jaipur.
Judgement
The State Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, awarding INR 200,000 compensation for deficiency in service and INR 21,000 litigation costs.
The NCDRC upheld the State Commission’s decision, holding that –
- The tour operator’s failure to provide complete travel details on time, sudden hotel changes, and lack of insurance amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
- The State Commission had territorial jurisdiction since the complainant booked the package from Jaipur, where the tour operator had an office.
- Considering the complainant’s age (75+) and the distress caused, the compensation was deemed fair and justified.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed, and the tour operator was held accountable for its service failures, reinforcing the duty of travel companies to provide smooth, hassle-free travel experiences as promised to consumers.
The tour operator could have mitigated its financial and legal risks with business insurance tailored for travel agencies, which protects against customer claims and service failures. Professional Liability Insurance (Errors & Omissions Insurance) would have covered legal costs and settlements for negligence or mismanagement, reducing liability for the deficiency in service claim.
Please contact the SafeTree team for how we could support you in providing financial protection against such legal claims.
Contact
Mr Akarshit Sonkar – M: +91 9582743333 or E: akarshit@safetree.in
Ms Gunjan Hans – M: +91 9899044229 or E: gunjan.hans@safetree.in
