© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
A family of three had to abandon their travel plans to Edmonton, Canada when Jet Airways went bankrupt and ceased operations in April 2019. Five years later, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (henceforth, the National Commission) ordered Goibibo, the online travel agency through which the tickets were booked, to issue a refund.
Why was the travel agency held responsible, and not the airline? Here is a chronology of events which answers this question.
In February-March 2019, the Jaiswal family booked tickets to travel from New Delhi to Edmonton, Canada in October. The booking was for Jet Airways flights, and made through Goibibo. Unfortunately, Jet went bankrupt and ceased all flight operations in April 2019. The Jaiswals’ flight was cancelled.
The family then approached Goibibo to issue a refund of the ticket amount (Rs 1,83,140) multiple times, and even served a legal notice to the company to this end. But to no avail. Thus, the Jaiswals filed a complaint at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga (henceforth, the District Commission) claiming Goibibo’s actions amounted to deficiency of service and unfair trade practices which are punishable offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The District Commission on June 7, 2022, directed the agency to refund the ticket amount with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the tickets were booked. Goibibo appealed this order before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (henceforth, the State Commission). But the State Commission rejected the appeal on August 17, 2023, which finally led to an appeal before the National Commission.
Before the National Commission, Goibibo argued that they were “merely a facilitator between consumer and service provider” and had “nothing to do with the entire dispute” as it discharged its obligation after booking the tickets. They argued that the original complaint should have been filed against Jet Airways instead.
It relied on the case of Ajay Travels v Pulak Jain and Ors (2019) to substantiate these arguments. In this case, the National Commission dealt with a situation where two doctors missed an exam after their Jet Airways flight was rescheduled. The court held that the travel agency — Ajay Travels — was “only an agent of Jet Airways for the purpose of booking the tickets” and that there was “no obligation cast on them to intimate the change in the time of the flights to the complainants”.
On the other hand, the family argued that Goibibo’s guidelines state that they will manage the refund of the tickets in case of a flight cancellation. They said that Goibibo “has failed to produce any cogent and convincing documents regarding the fact that they passed the payment to Jet Airways and Jet Airways was to refund the same” and that “there is no communication between the respondents/complainants and Jet Airways regarding the tickets which were purchased”.
Like the State Commission before it, the National Commission referred to the fine print in the ‘Goibibo International flight booking policy’ to arrive at its decision. On the subject of ‘Refunds’, the policy states that “It is mandatory to contact Goibibo for all refunds, as the airline will not be able to refund your tickets booked at http://www.goibibo.com.”
The National Commission also referred to a circular issued by Jet Airways. In cases where tickets are booked through ‘a travel agent or an online aggregator’ the circular directs customers to “claim your refund from your travel agent or travel aggregator as applicable”.
The National Commission then reproduced and confirmed the State Commission’s findings, stating that it agreed with its “well reasoned order”. The State Commission had held that Goibibo “has failed to produce any cogent and convincing documents regarding the fact that they passed that payment of Jet Airways and Jet Airways was to refund the same. Without the relevant evidence they cannot escape from their liability for the payment which is received by them.”
The State Commission had also observed that “The appellant-Goibibo may be an intermediary but they are also a commission agent and they are not giving their services as charity… the appellant Goibibo cannot escape from their responsibility in case bookings are cancelled, and they are bound to refund the amount received by them from the consumers.”
Thus, the National Commission rejected Goibibo’s appeal.
