Family left stranded in -4°C over ‘non-existent’ Gulmarg hotel, wins Rs 48,000

“We are of the view that, due to the non-existence of the Gulmarg property, combined with severe snowfall and sub-zero conditions (-4°C), the complainant and his family, including his wife and two adult children, were forced to sleep overnight inside their vehicle,” the commission said on September 17.

The order said that a consumer cannot “check in” to a hotel that does not physically exist; as such, the ground of “no-show” is also an afterthought and has been taken only to escape from liability.

Pointing out that the opposite parties were negligent, deficient in providing services, and engaged in unfair trade practices by listing ghost/non-existent properties and failing to assist the stranded complainant and his family, the order said, “This also rendered their prebooked Gondola tickets useless and destroyed the family trip.”

Family spent night in car amid severe snowfall

The complainant, a practicing advocate from Gurdaspur, booked accommodation through a well-known travel booking web portal for a family trip to Srinagar and Gulmarg. He booked a hotel room in Srinagar by paying Rs 5,788 and in Gulmarg by paying Rs 12,987.

He reached Srinagar on December 27, 2025, with his wife, daughter, and son at 11 am and reached the listed location by 11:50 am. He alleged that when he reached the location, the booked hotel was found to be non-existent and was instead a private homestay.

According to the complainant, after waiting unsuccessfully for accommodation, the family arranged alternative lodging at additional expense. On the next day, i.e., December 28, 2025, due to traffic army convoy delays, they reached Gulmarg around 8:00 pm, only to discover that the second booked hotel also did not exist.

The complainant claimed that due to the heavy snowfall and non-availability of rooms, he and his family had to spend the night in their car in sub-zero temperatures of minus 4 degrees Celsius and were unable to use their pre-booked gondola tickets, and they had to return to Gurdaspur on December 29, 2025, without enjoying Gulmarg.

He alleged that despite WhatsApp confirmations and repeated communications through customer care and emails on December 27, 28, and 29, the opposite parties failed to provide any assistance or satisfactory response. A legal notice seeking refund and compensation also remained unanswered.

Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a plea before consumer commission and, seeking refund and compensation for physical suffering, harassment, mental agony, financial loss, and wasted Gondola tickets.

It was only intermediary: Travel portal

The travel booking portal submitted that the opposite party merely acts as an intermediary for the booking of confirmed bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers such as hotels, airlines, and other hospitality service providers, and upon receiving a request from its customers, they forward the same to the concerned service provider(s) through software systems embedded on its web portal and mobile application.

It was argued that the complainant has not even impleaded the service provider hotels as a party in the present case and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties.

The opposite parties stated that, upon receiving the complaint, they immediately contacted the respective hotels, which informed them that the complainant had never approached them and was accordingly marked as a “no show.”

Both properties found non-existent: Order

The commission held that the travel booking portal could not avoid consumer liability by claiming to be merely an online intermediary. Since it collected the full payment, issued confirmed booking vouchers and promised verified accommodation, it had a responsibility to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and E-Commerce Rules, 2020.

It observed that listing non-existent hotels as verified accommodations amounted to unfair trade practice, while failure to provide the confirmed accommodation constituted deficiency in service.

“The complainant establishes and proves on record that the complainant had paid Rs 5,788 for a ‘Family Room at Hotel Heritage Rose Inn.’ Upon reaching the location, no such hotel existed; it was a private homestay incapable of honouring the booking, forcing the family to seek emergency alternative arrangements. The second booking was at Gulmarg for December 28, 2025, and the complainant had paid Rs 12,987 for ‘Hotel Apple Tree Resorts.’ The hotel was found to be non-existent on the ground,” the order observed.

The cmmission found that both the Srinagar and Gulmarg properties were not available as booked. It concluded that the booking confirmations, emails and other documents established that the accommodation booked through the web portal was not made available at the destination, and that the company failed to provide adequate assistance or re-accommodation.

Takeaway

The judgment reinforced that online travel portals can be held responsible for confirmed bookings when listed properties do not exist. It underscores their duty to verify accommodation listings, assist stranded consumers, and ensure that intermediary status does not become a shield against consumer liability.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Punjab helpline: 1800-425-1082) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.