Online Travel Portals Cannot Avoid Consumer Liability By Claiming To Be 'Facilitators': South Delhi Consumer Commission
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, South Delhi, comprising Ms. Monika A. Srivastava (President) and Ms. Kiran Kaushal (Member), has held that online travel portals cannot evade responsibility toward consumers by claiming to be mere facilitators. The Commission found MakeMyTrip liable for deficiency in service for giving false assurances regarding refund processing and directed Malaysia Airlines to refund the ticket amount with interest along with compensation for mental agony. The Commission observed that even during the unprecedented circumstances arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, the conduct of the service providers in making the consumer repeatedly approach both the airline and the booking portal for a rightful refund amounted to deficiency in service.
The complainant, Karan Pradeep, had booked international flight tickets on 22 October 2019 through MakeMyTrip for travel on Malaysia Airlines as a wedding gift for his brother and sister-in-law. An amount of ₹65,802 was paid for travel scheduled between 13 March 2020 and 21 March 2020 on the Delhi–Kuala Lumpur–Manila route.
During the first quarter of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic spread globally and the Philippines declared a Public Health Emergency, followed by a lockdown in Manila from 15 March 2020 to 14 April 2020. In view of these developments, Malaysia Airlines introduced an “Ultimate Flexibility Ticket Change Policy,” which permitted unlimited changes to travel dates or destinations. Under the policy, tickets booked through agents were required to be rescheduled through the respective booking agents.
When the complainant contacted MakeMyTrip to reschedule the tickets, the customer care representatives initially refused the request stating that they were unaware of the airline’s policy. Despite repeated attempts, the complainant could not secure rescheduling. Following email exchanges, MakeMyTrip proposed cancellation of the PNR and initiation of a refund request with the airline, which the complainant accepted while reserving the option of date change if refund was not approved.
On 19 March 2020, MakeMyTrip informed the complainant by email that the refund had been initiated and would be processed within sixty to ninety days. The email stated: “We have initiated refund amount of Rs.65,802/- on 19.03.2020 which will be taking sixty to ninety days from the date of process.”
However, no refund was received even after the stipulated period. In July 2020, the complainant was informed that the tickets were non-refundable, though he was offered a limited date-change option which differed from the airline’s flexibility policy.
In May 2022, when the complainant again attempted to avail benefits under the flexibility policy, he was directed by Malaysia Airlines to approach MakeMyTrip, while the portal maintained that the airline was responsible. Malaysia Airlines later issued travel vouchers which contained discrepancies in booking references and other details. Aggrieved by these developments, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and sought refund with interest along with compensation and litigation costs.
MakeMyTrip contended that the complaint was barred by limitation and argued that it acted merely as a facilitator whose responsibility ended once the booking and PNR were issued. It submitted that cancellation and refund of tickets were solely the responsibility of the airline and that the tickets booked by the complainant were non-refundable. It also submitted that the disruptions were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and that it initially had no knowledge of the airline’s flexibility policy. Malaysia Airlines did not appear before the Commission and was proceeded against ex parte.
The Commission rejected the objection regarding limitation by relying on the directions of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which excluded the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 for the purposes of limitation. The complaint filed on 29 November 2023 was therefore held to be within limitation.
Rejecting MakeMyTrip’s defence that it was merely a facilitator, the Commission held that the complainant had paid consideration for availing its services and that the portal failed to effectively facilitate either a refund or alternative travel arrangements. The Commission observed: “We are also of the opinion that OP-1 cannot wash off its liability by stating that it is merely a facilitator as complainant had taken the services of OP-1 to book the tickets of OP-2’s airlines, who actually failed to facilitate the complainant.”
As regards Malaysia Airlines, the Commission found it deficient in service for failing to refund the ticket amount and for not allowing the complainant to directly manage alternate travel arrangements. The Commission noted that although the flights were cancelled due to pandemic-related restrictions, the passengers were not at fault and therefore the airline could not retain the amount paid for the tickets.
The Commission concluded that even considering the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was unfair on the part of both service providers to make the complainant repeatedly “shuttle” between them for his rightful refund or travel for which he had already paid.
Accordingly, the Commission directed Malaysia Airlines to refund ₹65,802 with interest at 6% per annum from 13 March 2020. MakeMyTrip was directed to pay ₹25,000 for giving false assurances and deficiency in service. The Commission also directed MakeMyTrip and Malaysia Airlines jointly and severally to pay ₹30,000 towards mental agony and harassment. The amounts were directed to be paid within three months, failing which interest at 8% per annum would be payable till realization.
Cause Title: Karan Pradeep v. Make My Trip (India) Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case No: DC/83/CC/343/2023
Coram: Ms. Monika A. Srivastava (President) and Ms. Kiran Kaushal (Member)
