Planning an international trip often involves significant financial investment, but unforeseen changes by travel platforms and airlines can quickly turn a dream vacation into a stressful ordeal. A traveller who spent 1.55 lakh rupees on flight tickets and opted for a zero-cancellation policy found themselves struggling to get a refund when their itinerary was altered without consent. When both the booking website and the airline refused to cooperate, the matter reached the consumer commission, resulting in strict legal accountability for the companies involved.
Visakhapatnam Consumer Commission Verdict
The Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favor of the passenger after a detailed hearing of the case. The commission ordered the travel booking website and the airline to jointly pay a total of 1.95 lakh rupees to the affected traveller. This compensation includes a full refund of 1.55 lakh rupees for the ticket, along with 30,000 rupees awarded for mental agony and 10,000 rupees covering the legal costs of the litigation. This landmark decision reinforces consumer rights regarding unauthorized itinerary changes and unjustified refusals of refunds.
Planned Journey Across Multiple International Cities
According to the official complaint, the passenger had booked round-trip tickets along with a companion through a travel website. The original itinerary required both travellers to fly from Delhi to New York on September 4, 2024, followed by subsequent stops in Miami and Quito. The return journey was scheduled to pass through Miami and New York before arriving back in Delhi on September 11. The entire international travel package cost approximately 1.55 lakh rupees. During the booking process, the passenger specifically purchased a zero-cancellation policy to ensure financial protection in case the trip needed to be called off.
Itinerary Altered Without Passenger Consent
Problems arose when the airline altered flight timings and travel schedules after the tickets were confirmed, culminating in the complete cancellation of the Miami-to-Quito flight leg. The passenger promptly contacted the travel website to explain that the revised schedule failed to serve the purpose of the journey, demanding a ticket cancellation and full financial reimbursement. The passenger maintained that no modifications had been requested and no approval was ever given for the new schedule. Despite this stance, the website reportedly continued sending automated messages designed to make it look as though the modifications originated from the traveller's own requests.
Defenses Raised by the Website and Airline
During the commission proceedings, the travel website argued that the airline altered flight schedules after ticket confirmation, an event outside the platform's control. Counsel for the website claimed the passenger inquired about alternative travel arrangements and that a new schedule was prepared upon request. Furthermore, the website asserted that the zero-cancellation policy did not cover situations where an airline altered flight timings. Meanwhile, the airline maintained that it had communicated the schedule changes well in advance of the travel date and claimed the travel website independently cancelled the old booking to issue a new itinerary, asserting that third-party booking refunds were not its direct responsibility while noting it had transferred 14,545 rupees to the travel platform.
No-Show Claims Rejected by the Commission
The airline also defended its position by stating that the passenger and companion failed to check in for the initial flight, leading to their classification as a no-show. According to the airline, standard international flight procedures dictate that missing the first flight leg results in the automatic cancellation of all subsequent sectors. Despite these arguments, the consumer commission directed both the travel website and the airline to complete the 1.95 lakh rupee payment, covering the 1.55 lakh rupee ticket refund, 30,000 rupees in compensation, and 10,000 rupees in legal expenses.
