After 9 years, MakeMyTrip settles 2017 dispute with Rs 2.73 lakh payout: Why apex consumer body closed case

After several years of proceedings, the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission ruled in favour of the consumers on February 25, 2024, directing payment of compensation of Rs 2.73 lakh.

Appeal before the national consumer commission

Challenging this order, MakeMyTrip filed a first appeal before the national commission in 2025.

Jet Airways was also among the parties in the original complaint.

Alongside, execution proceedings were initiated before the state consumer commission to ensure that the awarded compensation was actually paid.

During the pendency of the appeal, the company moved an application informing the national  commission that it had already complied with the order.

Payment of compensation

MakeMyTrip told the court that it had paid the full amount of Rs 2,73,277 to the respondents through demand drafts, as required under the state commission’s order.

This fact was specifically mentioned in its application before the national commission.

Commission’s decision

Taking note of the payment, the national consumer commission observed that the decree had been fully satisfied.

The counsel for the company also submitted that since the amount had already been paid, no further orders were required in the appeal.

Accepting this submission, the commission allowed the application and ordered that the appeal be consigned, effectively closing the case.

“The Appeal is accordingly consigned,” the order stated.

What this means for consumers

In simple terms, once a company follows a consumer court’s order and pays the compensation, the legal dispute comes to an end. The courts do not continue to hear appeals when the issue has already been resolved.

With the full payment made and accepted, this nearly decade-long consumer dispute has now been formally closed.

22 years on, national consumer body orders Gurgaon builder to pay 18 per cent interest after failure to deliver

On March 25, calling out a builder’s prolonged failure to deliver a promised flat despite full payment, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has enhanced compensation to the homebuyers by ordering an 18 per cent interest refund, holding that lawful possession had become “impossible” due to regulatory and title-related hurdles.

A bench of Justice A P Sahi (president) and Bharatkumar Pandya (member) was hearing an appeal filed by the homebuyers against the Delhi State Commission’s 2015 order, which had granted a refund instead of possession of the flat.

“The rate of interest as awarded to the tune of 10 per cent by the State Commission on the peculiar facts of this case shall stand modified to 18 per cent, which we find to be justified in the circumstances of the present case where the person after investing a huge amount has been waiting since 2006 to get a valid possession,” the commission said.

The  core issue before the commission was whether the complainants were entitled to actual possession of the property or whether a refund with appropriate interest was the proper relief in light of the builder’s failure to deliver the flat.

Possession not legally viable: NCDRC

• The national consumer commission held that possession without legal title or regulatory compliance would not amount to meaningful relief.
• There is no hope of a perfect title over the property being conveyed to the complainant or possession being delivered as promised.
• The deficiency is, therefore, established and to that extent, the order of the state commission has not even been challenged by the opposite parties.
• It concluded that a refund, rather than possession, was the only viable remedy in the circumstances.
• We find it expedient and in the interest of justice to award refunds with interest by balancing the equities amongst the parties.

Interest raised to 18 per cent

• While upholding the state commission’s decision to grant refund, the national consumer commission modified the interest rate from 10 per cent to 18 per cent per annum, citing the “peculiar facts” of the case.
• The commission noted that the buyers had invested a substantial amount as early as 2004.
• They had been waiting since 2006 for possession.
• The builder’s deficiency remained unchallenged.
• It further directed that the amount be paid within three months, failing which the interest will rise to 21 per cent.