Couple paid for Bali holiday, but operator failed to include them in tour; commission orders Rs 90,000 |

AI generated image used for representative purpose

NEW DELHI: A Kerala consumer commission has directed a tour operator and its owner to pay Rs 90,000 to a man who paid for a Bali holiday but was not included in the tour and did not receive a full refund. The commission also ordered the operator to pay the refund amount, after finding unfair trade practice on his part.The commission found that the tour operator had received the money, later failed to provide the promised Bali tour and refunded only Rs 22,500 after agreeing to return the full amount of Rs 60,000.

Case details

As per the commission order, the customer had approached Kerala Travelzone Pvt Ltd for a Bali tour for himself and his wife after seeing advertisements for tour packages in newspapers and on social media.He paid Rs 82,500 through his bank account on December 23, 2019 towards the package.The tour could not initially take place because of bad weather and later because of the Covid-19 pandemic and travel restrictions. The customer alleged that he was subsequently informed that the Bali tour was rescheduled for February 8, 2023 and was given an itinerary.However, he alleged that the tour operator ultimately failed to include him and his wife in the trip.The customer later approached Calicut Town police station on March 14, 2023. According to his complaint, the tour operator then agreed to refund his money and issued two cheques.One cheque for Rs 42,500 was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and the complainant received only Rs 22,500. He then approached the consumer commission seeking the balance amount, interest, compensation and litigation costs.The tour operator did not appear before the commission despite receiving notice and nor did they filed any statement. The commission therefore proceeded against them ex parte.The customer produced documents including proof of payment of Rs 82,500, newspaper and social-media advertisements, the tour itineraries and a copy of his police complaint.

Commission’s finding on tour operator

The bench comprising President C T Sabu and member Ram Mohan R found that the documents established that the customer had paid Rs 82,500 and that the proposed Bali tour had not been provided to him and his wife.The commission also noted that, after agreeing to refund the money, the tour operator had not made the full repayment.“The evidence on record establishes that the opposite parties received Rs 82,500 from the complainant, failed to provide the promised tour service and did not refund the entire amount even after agreeing to do so,” the commission said.The commission then made the observation that retaining the money without providing the promised service and then failing to make the complete repayment amounted to deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.“Such failure constitutes deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The conduct of retaining the consideration without providing the promised service and thereafter failing to make complete repayment also amounts to an unfair trade practice,” the bench said.It then calculated the unpaid amount at Rs 60,000 after adjusting the Rs 22,500 already received by the customer.The commission also noted that the customer had to approach the police and subsequently the consumer commission to recover his own money.It held that he had suffered inconvenience and mental agony and awarded Rs 20,000 as compensation. It also awarded Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.The commission, however, did not accept the claim for 12 percent interest from the date of the original payment. Considering the circumstances, including the Covid-19 restrictions that had initially affected international travel, it ordered 9 percent annual interest on the Rs 60,000 from May 12, 2023, when the repayment cheques were issued.

What did the commission order?

The consumer commission, in its September 15, 2026 order, partly allowed the complaint and directed the tour operator and its proprietor, jointly and severally, to: