Follow us on Google News
Visakhapatnam: The Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an airline and an online travel booking platform to pay a total of Rs 1.95 lakh to a passenger whose international flight itinerary was altered without his consent. Holding both companies guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the commission ordered them to refund the original ticket cost of Rs 1.55 lakh. In addition to the ticket refund, the companies must pay Rs 30,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience, along with Rs 10,000 toward litigation expenses, bringing the additional relief to Rs 40,000.
The dispute arose after the complainant booked international round-trip tickets for himself and a friend through the online travel portal for a trip planned from Delhi to New York and onward to South America. Under the original schedule, the pair was slated to depart Delhi for New York on September 4, 2024, before connecting to Miami and then Quito, the capital of Ecuador. Their return journey was scheduled for September 11 via Quito, Miami, and New York back to Delhi. However, once the tickets were confirmed, the flight timings and itinerary were changed without the passenger’s permission. Because the revised schedule defeated the purpose of his travel, the passenger sought to cancel the tickets and claim a full refund under the zero-cancellation policy he had purchased during booking, which the portal ultimately rejected.
Booking Portal Shifts Blame to Airline
During the proceedings before the commission, the travel website contended that the schedule changes, including the cancellation of the Miami to Quito leg, were executed by the airline after ticket confirmation and were beyond its control. Counsel for the portal claimed that the passenger subsequently approached the platform for alternative arrangements, leading to the issuance of a modified itinerary at his request. The company also argued that the zero-cancellation policy purchased by the customer did not apply to schedule changes initiated by an airline, asserting that the carrier’s refund policy governed the matter and that the airline had refused to return the money.
In its defense, the airline maintained that passengers were informed of the schedule modifications well ahead of departure and argued that the changes did not significantly impact their travel plans. It accused the booking website of canceling the original reservation on its own and issuing an entirely new itinerary. The carrier further stated that for bookings made through third-party agents, direct responsibility for cancellations and refunds did not rest with the airline, adding that it had already transferred Rs 14,545 to the travel portal for onward remittance to the passenger. The airline also noted that the passengers were marked as no-shows after failing to check in for the initial flight segment, which under standard international aviation rules allows subsequent sectors to be canceled.
Commission Faults Unilateral Schedule Change
After examining arguments from both sides, the consumer commission found that the manner in which the original booking was modified was improper. The forum specifically noted that the travel portal failed to provide a clear response to the complainant’s core allegation that his itinerary was altered without his consent, observing that this silence strengthened the passenger’s claim. Furthermore, the commission pointed out that the portal had effectively acknowledged implementing a new travel schedule without obtaining the customer’s explicit approval.
Written Consent Mandatory for Itinerary Modifications
The commission ruled that a responsible intermediary cannot impose an alternative itinerary on a consumer without securing prior written consent, especially in international travel where flight timings and connections are critical to the trip’s purpose. Concluding that both the airline and the booking website ignored the passenger’s interests by unilaterally altering his travel plans, the commission held them jointly accountable. It clarified that an online travel platform’s role extends beyond merely facilitating reservations and that consumers cannot be denied refunds after their travel conditions are changed without authorization.
