Kerala Consumer Commission Slams Tour Operator For Withholding Refund; Orders ₹1.25 Lakh Payout To College Student After Cancelled Trip
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam has pulled up a tour operator and its proprietor for failing to refund the advance amount collected from students of Sacred Heart College, Thevara, after their educational tour was cancelled due to train cancellations. Holding that the conduct of the opposite parties amounted to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission directed them to refund the advance and compensate the complainant for the hardship caused.
The Bench comprising D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. noted that the case reflected how consumer disputes often arise from avoidable conduct and a lack of basic fairness. Observing that the complainant—a young student—had been compelled to litigate for an amount that should have been refunded without delay, the Commission remarked that consumer protection is rooted in dignity, transparency and accountability. It stated that the record remained fully unrebutted due to the opposite parties’ silence and non-participation.
The complainant, a student of Sacred Heart College, had engaged the opposite parties in 2023 to coordinate a study tour for 41 students to Goa and Dandeli. Based on the tour plan issued by the opposite parties, the total cost was fixed at ₹2.07 lakh, and as part-performance, the complainant paid an advance of ₹1 lakh in three installments. The students booked their train tickets separately using their own funds. However, the trains were cancelled, resulting in the cancellation of the tour itself.
Upon being informed, the opposite parties initially agreed to refund the advance amount. However, despite repeated requests and even after receiving a legal notice, they failed to make the refund. With no response forthcoming, the complainant approached the Commission seeking redressal.
During the proceedings, the complainant produced evidence including the payment receipts, the tour agreement issued by the opposite parties, the legal notice, and the postal acknowledgments demonstrating receipt of the notice. The opposite parties failed to appear and were proceeded against ex parte. After examining the documents, the Commission held that the complaint was maintainable and that the opposite parties had clearly failed in their contractual obligations.
The Commission observed that once the tour became impossible due to train cancellations and once the service provider had undertaken to refund the money, there was a legal duty to return it. The deliberate withholding of the refund, despite acknowledging the cancellation and promising repayment, constituted deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Commission further noted that the conduct of the opposite parties amounted to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47), as they continued to retain the consumers’ money despite non-performance.
Holding the opposite parties jointly and severally liable, the Commission directed them to refund the amount of ₹1 lakh along with ₹20,000 as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship suffered by the complainant, and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. The total amount of ₹1.25 lakh was ordered to be paid with 9% interest from the date of complaint until realization. Concluding that the students were unfairly forced into unnecessary litigation, the Commission underscored that prompt refunds are not acts of generosity but legal obligations that businesses must uphold.
Cause Title: Heloyis Manuel v. B.M. Tours & Travels and Anr.
Case No: C.C. No. 233 of 2025
Coram: D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran, Sreevidhia T.N.
