Flight cancelled in 2020, ticket refunded in 2023: Man gets Rs 60,000 compensation for nearly 3-year delay

Delayed refund

According to the complaint, the passenger had booked a SpiceJet flight from Mumbai to Chennai via Durgapur for June 9, 2020, through Yatra’s mobile application, paying Rs 4,301 for the ticket and Rs 269 for travel insurance. The flight was later cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The complainant alleged that despite repeated follow-ups, the ticket amount was not refunded for years and the insurance claim was also denied. He contended that the refund was eventually processed in December 2023 only after he issued a legal notice.

‘Continuing wrong’

• The commission noted that SpiceJet airline had transferred the refund amount to Yatra on January 17, 2021, but the passenger received the money only on December 11, 2023.
• The commission observed that Yatra retained the complainant’s money for nearly three years without offering any explanation, amounting to a clear deficiency in service.
• The failure to refund the amount cannot be viewed as a one-time breach, rather it constitutes a continuing wrong “giving rise to a recurring and continuing cause of action”, the commission noted.
• At the same time, it observed that no deficiency in service was made out against SpiceJet in relation to the delayed refund, as it had already transferred the refund to Yatra Online.
• Once the refund was duly processed and remitted, the second Opposite Party (SpiceJet) cannot be held responsible for the subsequent delay in payment to the complainant. Accordingly, no deficiency in service is made out against the 2nd Opposite Party in relation to the delayed refund, the commission remarked.
• It also rejected the claim against the insurer after finding that the policy specifically excluded claims arising from airline-initiated cancellations and changes to travel arrangements.
• The commission held Yatra Online liable by observing that its conduct “compelled the complainant to pursue repeated representations and legal proceedings to recover an amount admittedly due to him. Such conduct amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, causing mental agony, inconvenience, and hardship.”
• Considering the prolonged delay, harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant, it awarded Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs payable by the 1st Opposite Party.

Compensation for overcharging

In another case, the consumer commission in Kerala directed the State Beverages Corporation (KSBC) to pay Rs 25,000 in compensation and costs to a customer after finding that it charged Rs 10 more than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on a beer bottle.

The order passed by a bench comprising George Baby (president) and Nishad Thankappan (member) noted that charging excess MRP constitutes ‘unfair trade practice‘ and ‘deficiency in service’.

“Charging excess of MRP by opposite party constitutes “unfair trade practice” and “deficiency in service” as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in our considered view adequate compensation should be levied on the opposite party to change this trend,” the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta, noted in its order dated June 3.