Boutique Club & Musa Trip Pvt. Ltd. Held Liable For Deficiency In Service, Unfair Trade Practice: Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders ₹1 Lakh Relief

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member) held the Boutique Club and Musa Trip Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide a booked holiday package or refund the amount paid by the complainant.

Brief Facts of the Case:

The complainant, Rajni, filed a consumer complaint against The Boutique Club(OP No.1) , The Cortiza Holidays (OP No.2), M/s Reva Incentives Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.3, and Musa Trip Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.4), alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice concerning a holiday package booking.

On 16 December 2022, the complainant booked a holiday package for her family by paying ₹15,000 to The Boutique Club . The package was valid for one year, i.e., from 16.12.2022 to 16.12.2023. She later received a coupon from Reva Incentives Pvt. Ltd., which mentioned that the last date of submission was 20.02.2024 and the hotel expiry date was 25.03.2024.

Subsequently, she deposited an additional ₹65,000 with OP No.4, for which she attached her SBI bank statement as proof. On 18 January 2024, she sent an email requesting booking of a Dubai trip scheduled for 15 March 2024. However, on 20 January 2024, OP No.3 replied that there was a payment dispute with OP No.2 due to which the booking could not be confirmed.

Despite multiple follow-ups and email reminders, the opposite parties failed to provide confirmation for the Dubai trip. Later, on 15 March 2024, OP No.1 assured the complainant that a new 3N/4D voucher would be issued. The complainant again requested a fresh booking for 25 April 2024, but the opposite parties neither confirmed the booking nor refunded her money. Eventually, on 4 September 2024, OP No.1 informed her that the package had expired and refused to issue a refund.

Having been denied both the promised services and her refund, Rajni filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, seeking refund of ₹80,000 (₹15,000 + ₹65,000) along with interest, compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs.

Contentions of the Complainant:

The complainant, contended that she had booked a family holiday package with the opposite parties on 16 December 2022, after paying a total amount of ₹80,000—₹15,000 to The Boutique Club (OP No.1) and ₹65,000 to Musa Trip Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.4). She stated that despite repeated requests and emails for confirming her Dubai trip scheduled for 15 March 2024, the opposite parties failed to make the booking and later refused to refund the amount, claiming that the package had expired. She alleged that this amounted to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and sought a refund with interest and compensation for harassment and mental agony.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties:

OP Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel but failed to file their written statements within the prescribed period. Consequently, their right to file the same was struck off . OP Nos.3 and 4, despite due service, did not appear before the Commission and were proceeded ex parte . As a result, the complainant's averments remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.

Observation and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission observed that the complainant had clearly proved payment of ₹15,000 to OP No.1 and ₹65,000 to OP No.4 towards booking of the holiday package. Despite receiving the total amount of ₹80,000, the opposite parties neither provided the promised holiday package nor refunded the money. The Commission noted that such conduct constituted deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, which caused physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant.

The Commission further observed that the opposite parties failed to file any written statement or evidence to rebut the complainant's claims, and hence her contentions remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.

Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed:

1. OP No.1 and OP No.4 to refund ₹15,000 and ₹65,000 respectively to the complainant.
2. All opposite parties jointly and severally to pay ₹20,000 as lump sum compensation, which also included litigation expenses.

The Commission ordered that the above directions be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the entire amount would carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order until realization.

Case Title: Rajni Vs. THE BOUTIQUE CLUB

Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/139/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order