Deficiency in service: Failure to refund booking amount to Ludhiana man lands travel company in soup

For failing to refund booking amount paid by a city resident, despite pandemic-induced travel restrictions, the Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Sterling Holiday Resorts to refund ₹7500 to the complainant and pay ₹2500 as compensation

For failing to refund booking amount paid by a city resident, despite pandemic-induced travel restrictions, the Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Sterling Holiday Resorts to refund ₹7500 to the complainant and pay ₹2500 as compensation.

The Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that non-refund of the booking amount amounts to deficiency of service. (Representative image)

Rohit Sabharwal of Model Gram, Ludhiana, in his complaint submitted against Ramesh Ramanathan (opposite party 1) , chairman and managing director of Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited, Thoraipakkam, Chennai and Sudesh Agarwal (opposite party 2), chief information officer of the same resort, accused them of deficiency in services.

Rohit stated that he was a member of Sterling Holidays and had made a booking for its Manali resort from April 30, 2021 to May 03, 2021. Thereafter, he made another booking for Corbett from May 20, 2021 to May 24, 2021, and deposited a total amount of ₹7,500 with Sterling Holidays.

However, after he made the bookings, the Himachal and Uttarakhand governments made it mandatory for tourists to carry a Covid test report. Due to the restrictions, he requested the customer care of Sterling Holiday Resorts to cancel the bookings and refund the amount via an e-mail.

As per the complaint, he had also made a booking for Dharamshala from March 15, 2021 to March 17, 2021, for which he deposited ₹3,000. A day thereafter, he tested Covid positive and he cancelled the booking and requested a refund. He had also made a booking for Rishikesh, for which he deposited ₹2,652, which he also cancelled.

However, after being served with a legal notice, the company refunded ₹3,000 and ₹2,652 to him, but not the remaining amount of ₹7,500. The complainant thus sought ₹1-lakh compensation along with a refund of ₹7,500.

Since the opposition parties did not appear, the case proceeded ex-parte.

The commission observed that it is not in dispute that the complainant could not visit Manali and Corbett due to pandemic restrictions imposed by the respective state governments.

“In our considered view, non-refund of the booking amount amounts to deficiency of service, especially when they have refunded the amount against the other bookings which was also claimed on more or less on same grounds. In our considered view and in the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to refund the advance booking amount of ₹7,500, along with composite cost and compensation of ₹2,500 to the complainant,” pronounced the commission.