Kerala Consumer Commission Slams Tour Operator For Withholding Refund Of Cancelled Trip, Forcing Young Students To Litigate
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently ordered a tour operator and its proprietor to refund the advance amount of Rs. 1 lakh paid by the students of Sacred Heart College, Thevara after the tour got cancelled.The Commissioner further awarded a sum of ₹20,000 as compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and hardship suffered and ₹5,000 as costs of...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently ordered a tour operator and its proprietor to refund the advance amount of Rs. 1 lakh paid by the students of Sacred Heart College, Thevara after the tour got cancelled.
The Commissioner further awarded a sum of ₹20,000 as compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and hardship suffered and ₹5,000 as costs of the proceedings.
The Bench of D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. observed:
“This case is a reminder that behind every “consumer dispute” lies a human story. A group of students planned an educational tour with trust and excitement; when the trip collapsed due to train cancellations, the Opposite Parties' simple, immediate duty was to return the money they had taken. Instead, prolonged silence and non-participation forced a young complainant to litigate for what was plainly due. The record speaks coherently and remains unrebutted. Fair dealing and prompt refunds are not acts of benevolence but legal obligations. Our directions, therefore, aim not only to compensate a specific loss but to affirm that dignity, transparency, and accountability are the minimum owed to consumers.”
The complainant is a student of Sacred Heart College, Thevara. In 2023, he engaged the opposite parties for a study tour to Goa and Dandeli for himself and his classmates. Thereafter, the opposite parties had issued a tour plan for a total of ₹2.07 lakhs for 41 persons. As part-performance, the complainant paid ₹1 lakh.
The students booked train tickets at their own expense but since the trains got cancelled, the tour was also cancelled. On being informed, the opposite parties agreed to refund the amount. However, they did not do so in spite of repeated requests from the complainant and even after sending legal notice. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the commission.
The complainant produced documents evidencing payment of advance amount in three installments, the agreement issued by the opposite parties as well as the lawyer's notice and the Postal Acknowledgment cards signed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not appear before the commission and remained ex parte.
Examining the facts and the evidence before it, the Commission came to the conclusion that the complaint was maintainable and, that there was deficiency of practice and unfair by the opposite parties.
It further observed:
“Failure to refund promised sums after cancellation constitutes a deficiency in service under Section 2(11) CPA 2019. When performance becomes impossible and the service provider undertakes to refund, non-refund without justification is a service shortcoming… The Opposite Parties themselves agreed to refund by June 2023, but defaulted. Their conduct also bears the imprint of unfair trade practice (Section 2(47)) by withholding consumers' money after acknowledged non-performance.”
Thus, the Commission ordered payment of ₹1.25 lakhs with 9% interest towards refund, compensation and costs to the complainant. It also held that the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.
Case No: C.C. No. 233 of 2025
Case Title: Heloyis Manuel v. B.M. Tours & Travels and Anr.
Counsel for the complainant: M. J . Johnson