Delhi HC Slams Travel Firm For Misrepresentation And Fund Appropriation | Orders Refund Of ₹8 Lakh With Interest In COVID-Cancelled Tour Dispute
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that Respondent No. 1 and M/s Marvs Travels Group Australia Pvt. Ltd. (MTG) were jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of ₹8,00,000 to the appellant. The court further directed Respondent No. 1 to pay this amount along with simple interest at 8% per annum from the date of cancellation of a planned tour until the actual payment date. The court quashed and set aside the judgment and order of the District Commercial Court that had previously dismissed the appellant’s suit. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who had been removed as parties in the original suit, were not allowed to be re-joined in the appeal. The court also directed that a decree be drawn accordingly and stated there would be no order as to costs.
The matter arose from a commercial dispute regarding an advance payment made for a group tour to Australia that was later cancelled. In November 2019, the appellant intended to reward its business partners with a fully sponsored trip to Australia for 63 individuals. To arrange the tour, the appellant contacted Mr. Jatin Chaudhary of Plan My Tours (PMT), who introduced the appellant to Mr. Sanam Nijhawan, Director of Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Nijhawan presented himself as an experienced tour operator and assured that his company had managed large-scale international tours. He informed the appellant that his brother ran MTG, which would assist in the execution of the Australian tour. Subsequently, on 29.11.2019, a consensus was reached between the appellant, Respondent No. 1, and MTG at AUD 1245 per person for an all-inclusive trip from 6 June to 12 June 2020.
To confirm the booking, the appellant paid an advance of ₹8,00,000 to Respondent No. 1. The cancellation policy communicated allowed a full refund for cancellations made 40 days prior to travel.
However, the tour was cancelled on 25.03.2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite multiple requests, no refund was received. The appellant filed a suit in the Commercial Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, against the Respondents without impleading MTG as a party.
The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and Respondent No. 1, who was considered an agent of MTG. It concluded that MTG was the necessary party and, in its absence, the suit was bad for non-joinder.
The appellant contended that there was indeed privity of contract with Respondent No. 1, as the advance was paid to its bank account and all correspondence had been shared with MTG. The appellant claimed it had been misled by the Respondents into contracting with MTG and that Respondent No. 1 was actively involved in the arrangement and administration of the tour. The appellant relied on judicial precedents supporting its claims about misrepresentation, contractual liability, and the enforceability of agreements despite the non-joinder of intermediaries.
Respondent No. 1 argued it was merely an agent/BPO for MTG and not a travel service provider. It claimed the actual service provider was MTG, as evidenced by documents and communications. The payments made were on behalf of MTG and acknowledged as such in various emails. Respondent No. 1 asserted that it had no direct contract with the appellant.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that they were wrongfully joined in the appeal since they were struck off from the suit and subsequently removed from the memo of parties.
The court observed, "The learned District Court has, after examining the documentary and oral evidence, concluded that there was no privity of contract between Appellant and Respondent No.1." However, it went on to conduct its own assessment.
It recorded, "Admittedly, Mr. Jatin of PMT introduced Appellant to Respondent No. 2... Appellant booked the tour package and made advance part payment of ₹8,00,000/- to Respondent No. 1 on 04.12.2019."
"Relying upon the assurances of Respondent No.1, Appellant also applied for visa and paid ₹6,30,000/-, which was not refundable."
The court analysed that the emails from PMT to sales@marvstravelgroup.com were also copied to sales.india@marvstravelgroup.com, indicating the involvement of Respondent No. 1.
"Admittedly, the payment of ₹8,00,000/- was made to Respondent No. 1, which is acknowledged by MTG..."
It also noted discrepancies in Respondent No. 1's evidence: "DW1 has admitted that there was no document to show that Respondent No.1 was a BPO/Call Centre of MTG."
The bench recorded, "There was no bank statement produced by Respondent No. 1 to show that the amount of ₹8,00,000/- was transferred to the account of MTG."
"DW1 has volunteered in his cross-examination to state that an amount of ₹8,00,000/- was adjusted towards an outstanding, which was to be paid by MTG to Respondent No.1."
Accordingly, the court found, "The conclusion by the learned District Court that the amount was transferred by Respondent No. 1 to MTG as an agent... is not borne out from the documentary and oral evidence..."
"Respondent No. 1 was directly involved in the transaction... and cannot claim that it was an agent of MTG..."
The court also remarked, "The entire relationship with Appellant was handled in a composite manner by Respondent No. 1 and MTG clearly making both Respondent No. 1 and MTG jointly and severally liable..."
Regarding the cancellation refund, the court recorded: "From this email dated 18.11.2019, it is clear that full refund ought to have been given for any cancellation prior to 30 days."
"Further, there is no averment or document on record to show that MTG was billed by any third party for this tour."
"In any event, no travel would have been possible due to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, which was an act of God..."
The court stated, "Accordingly, Appellant is entitled to the refund of ₹8,00,000/- from Respondent No. 1 and Appellant will also be entitled to a simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of cancellation of the tour i.e. 25.03.2020 till the date of actual payment."
"In view of the above, the Appeal is hereby allowed against Respondent No. 1. As Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were deleted from array of the parties in the Suit, they could not have been joined in the Appeal."
"The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside."
"It is directed that Respondent No. 1 shall refund the sum of ₹8,00,000/- to Appellant along with a simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of cancellation of the tour i.e. 25.03.2020, till the date of actual payment."
"There shall be no order as to the cost."
"In view of the same the Suit is decreed in the aforesaid terms and let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nipun Katyal, Mr. Dhananjai Shekhawat, and Mr. Archit Jain, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Sanjana Samor, and Mr. Yash Yadav, Advocates
Case Title: M/S K Home Appliances v. M/S Marvs Travel India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4300-DB
Case Number: RFA(COMM) 479/2024
Bench: Justice Vibhu Bakhru , Justice Tejas Karia
[Read/Download order]
