Online Travel Portals Cannot Escape Liability As 'Mere Facilitators': South Delhi Consumer Commission In MMT–Malaysia Airlines Case
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, South Delhi, comprising Ms. Monika A. Srivastava (President) and Ms. Kiran Kaushal (Member), has ruled that online travel portals cannot evade responsibility toward consumers by claiming to be mere “facilitators.” The Commis-sion held MakeMyTrip liable for deficiency in service for giving false assurances regarding refund processing and directed Malaysia Airlines to refund the ticket amount with interest, along with compensation for mental agony.
The Commission observed that the consumer was unfairly made to “shuttle” between the booking portal and the airline for a rightful refund and noted that even amid the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, such conduct amounted to clear deficiency in service.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Karan Pradeep, booked international flight tickets for travel on Malaysia Air-lines (Opposite Party No. 2) through MakeMyTrip (Opposite Party No. 1) on 22.10.2019 as a wed-ding gift for his brother and sister-in-law. He paid ₹65,802/- for travel scheduled between 13 March and 21 March 2020 on the Delhi–Kuala Lumpur–Manila route.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Philippines declared a Public Health Emergency and imposed a lockdown in Manila. Malaysia Airlines subsequently introduced an “Ultimate Flexibility Ticket Change Policy,” permitting passengers to make unlimited changes to travel dates or destinations, with bookings made through agents required to be rescheduled through the respective agents.
When the complainant contacted MakeMyTrip to reschedule the tickets, customer care representa-tives allegedly stated that they were unaware of the airline's policy and refused the request. Fol-lowing email exchanges, MakeMyTrip proposed cancellation of the PNR and initiation of a refund request with the airline. On 19.03.2020, the complainant received an email stating that a refund of ₹65,802/- had been initiated and would be processed within 60 to 90 days.
However, no refund was received.
In May 2022, when the complainant attempted to avail benefits under the flexibility policy, he was directed back and forth between the airline and the booking platform. Malaysia Airlines later is-sued travel vouchers containing discrepancies in booking references and other details. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade prac-tice, seeking refund with interest, compensation, and litigation costs.
Arguments of the Opposite Parties
MakeMyTrip contended that the complaint was time-barred, arguing that the cause of action arose in July 2020. It further submitted that it acted merely as a facilitator and that its responsibility end-ed once the booking and PNR were issued. According to it, cancellations and refunds were solely the airline's responsibility, and the tickets were non-refundable. It also cited lack of knowledge of the airline's flexibility policy during the sudden lockdown.
Malaysia Airlines did not appear before the Commission and was proceeded ex parte.
Observations & Decision
Relying on the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, the Com-mission excluded the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 from the computation of limitation due to the pandemic and held that the complaint filed on 29 November 2023 was within limitation.
The Commission rejected MakeMyTrip's defence that it was merely a booking facilitator. It noted that the complainant had paid consideration to avail its services and that MakeMyTrip had assured, through email dated 19.03.2020, that a refund of ₹65,802/- had been initiated and would be pro-cessed within sixty to ninety days. This assurance was never honoured. Having charged for its ser-vices, the portal could not evade responsibility after failing to effectively facilitate either a refund or alternative travel.
As regards Malaysia Airlines, the Commission found it deficient in service for failing to refund the ticket amount and for not permitting the complainant to directly manage alternate travel under its flexibility policies. The Commission observed that although the flights were cancelled due to pan-demic-related restrictions, the passengers were not at fault. Therefore, the airline could not unjust-ly retain the complainant's money without offering either a refund or a viable alternative.
The Commission concluded that even considering the extraordinary circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the conduct of both Opposite Parties in making the complainant repeatedly “shuttle” between them amounted to clear deficiency in service.
The Commission directed:
1. Malaysia Airlines (OP-2) to refund ₹65,802/- with interest @6% per annum from 13.03.2020 (date of travel).
2. MakeMyTrip (OP-1) to pay ₹25,000/- for giving false assurances and deficiency in ser-vice.
3. MakeMyTrip and Malaysia Airlines jointly and severally to pay ₹30,000/- towards men-tal agony and harassment.
The amounts are to be paid within three months, failing which interest @8% per annum shall apply till realization.
Case Title: Karan Pradeep v. Make My Trip (India) Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case No.: DC/83/CC/343/2023