Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Vistara Airlines And IRCTC Liable For Unjust Cancellation Charges During COVID-19

The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - I presided by Shri Pawanjeet Singh along with Mrs. Surjeet Kaur and Mr. Suresh Kumar Sardana has allowed a consumer complaint against Vistara Airlines and IRCTC (India Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation) for not refunding the cancellation charges deducted from a booking made during the COVID-19 pandemic. The complainant had booked air tickets through IRCTC for a family trip to Port Blair, but due to the pandemic, the journey was canceled. Despite this, Vistara Airlines and IRCTC deducted cancellation charges totaling Rs. 22,500/- from the paid amount of Rs. 72,524/-. Ultimately, the commission found both Vistara Airlines and IRCTC responsible for not refunding the deducted amounts to the complainant. As a result, they ordered IRCTC to refund Rs. 10,500/- and directed Vistara Airlines and IRCTC together to refund Rs. 12,000/- along with interest. Additionally, they were asked to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs. Brief Facts Vikram Singh (Complainant) filed a complaint against Air India (Opposite Party No.1), Vistara Airlines (Opposite Party No.2), and IRCTC (Opposite Party No.3) under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. He bought four tickets from Air India and four from Vistara Airlines using IRCTC for a family trip from Calcutta to Port Blair, scheduled on March 27, 2020. The total cost was Rs. 72,524.38/-. But due to the COVID-19 outbreak, all tourism activities in Andaman and Nicobar Islands were halted, leading to the cancellation of Vikram's bookings. He notified IRCTC about the cancellation. When Vikram requested refunds from the airlines, Air India refunded the amount after deducting Rs. 10,500/- (Rs. 2,625 per ticket) and Vistara Airlines deducted Rs. 12,000/- (Rs. 3,000 per ticket) without providing a clear reason. Despite Vikram's repeated attempts to seek a refund, there was no positive response from the airlines. Vikram considered this deduction unjustified and filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on their part. Arguments of the Opposite Parties Air India argued that the complaint lacked grounds for action, claiming suppression of facts and maintainability. They admitted selling tickets through IRCTC but argued that the complaint had no basis against them.Vistara Airlines acknowledged the ticket purchase through IRCTC and claimed to have refunded the deducted amount. They argued that they had authorized a full refund, but IRCTC had not processed it, as the tickets were booked through them.IRCTC raised objections about the complaint's validity, stating that they merely act as an intermediary between users and service providers. They mentioned initiating a refund process for Rs. 10,500/- from the airlines, but due to lack of passenger details, they couldn't refund it to the complainant. Observations of the Commission The Commission acknowledged that the complainant booked tickets through IRCTC but faced cancellation due to COVID-19. They found that Air India refunded the deducted amount of Rs. 10,500/- to IRCTC, but IRCTC didn't pass this refund to the complainant. But Vistara Airlines could not prove that they refunded the deducted amount to IRCTC, implying a deficiency in service on their part. As a result, the commission held IRCTC liable for not refunding the deducted amounts to the complainant despite receiving it from Air India. As for Vistara Airlines, there was no proof that they had already refunded the deducted amount. While dismissing the complaint against Air India, the commission ordered IRCTC to refund Rs. 10,500/- with 9% interest. Additionally, the Commission directed both Vistara and IRCTC to refund Rs. 12,000/- along with 9% interest rate. The complainant was also awarded Rs. 10,000/- compensation for mental agony and Rs 10,000/- as litigation costs. Case Title: Vikram Singh vs Air India Counsel for the Complainant: None for complainant Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sh. Daksh Prem Azad, Advocate for OP No.1; Sh. Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate for OP No.2; Sh. Saksham Arora, Advocate for OP No.3 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Vistara Airlines And IRCTC Liable For Unjust Cancellation Charges During COVID-19

Apoorva Pandita

Tags