Holiday firm ‘denies’ hotel booking, delays membership refund, man wins Rs 1 lakh

The commission found that the opposite party failed to comply with its own contractual commitment regarding refund after receipt and processing of the cancellation request. Such failure amounts to a deficiency in service.

Vacation firm failed to provide accommodation

A man bought a 10-year vacation membership from a travel and vacation membership club for Rs 1.30 lakh. While he provided a payment receipt for Rs 65,000, the club itself formally acknowledged receiving Rs 80,000 from him.

When the complainant tried to book a hotel stay in February 2023, the company failed to provide the accommodation, claiming rooms were unavailable at his chosen destination. Disappointed with the service, he requested to cancel his membership on March 1, 2023, and asked for a refund.

The club accepted the cancellation and promised in writing that his money would be refunded within 90 days after making standard contractual deductions.

However, even after the 90-day period ended, the club failed to return his money. The complainant sent a legal notice, but when they still did not refund the amount, he filed a case with the consumer commission. The club did not show up in court to defend itself, so the case proceeded without it.

Refund delay constitutes service deficiency: Order

The commission observed that the mere non-availability of hotel accommodation on a specific date does not automatically constitute a deficiency in service by itself, especially when membership contracts include conditions regarding room availability.

The commission held that once the company processed and accepted the complainant’s cancellation request under its own contractual terms, it was bound to honour the 90-day refund timeline. Failing to pay the money after the 90 days expired constituted a clear deficiency in service.

The commission observed that stipulating a 90-day processing period does not give a service provider an unlimited right to hold onto a customer’s money. Holding the complainant’s funds beyond the agreed contractual timeframe without completing the refund was legally unjustifiable.

Takeaway

The ruling underscored that once a service provider accepts cancellation and promises a refund within a specified period, it must honour that commitment. A contractual processing period cannot become a justification for indefinitely retaining consumers’ money after cancellation.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi: 011-23379146) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

Rocking chair bought for aged parents ‘develops cracks’, woman wins Rs 38,000

3 years after insurer rejects fisherman’s drowning death claim, widow gets Rs 5 lakh

Man denied boarding over name mismatch, airline, travel company told to pay Rs 78,920