- Home
- /
- Consumer Cases
- /
- Price Hike In Holiday Package After...
Price Hike In Holiday Package After First Instalment, South Goa District Commission Holds MakeMyTrip India Liable For Unfair Trade Practices
Smita Singh
17 Oct 2023 6:30 PM IST
The South Goa Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjay M. Chodankar (President) and Nelly H. Pereira e D’Silva (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable of unfair trade practices for increasing the price of the holiday package by Rs 72k after the complainant had paid one installment of the same. The bench noted that this led to complainant ultimately cancelling the...
The South Goa Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjay M. Chodankar (President) and Nelly H. Pereira e D’Silva (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable of unfair trade practices for increasing the price of the holiday package by Rs 72k after the complainant had paid one installment of the same. The bench noted that this led to complainant ultimately cancelling the holiday package which subsequently caused mental agony to him.
Brief Facts:
Dr. Belinda Viegas Mueller (“Complainant”), along with family and friends, planned a vacation in February 2020. They explored holiday packages online through MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. They found a suitable 8-day, 7-night package and made an initial payment of Rs. 48,000, with two more installments due.
About a month later, the Complainant received an email indicating a significant price increase for the package, from Rs. 142,912 to Rs. 214,723. The Complainant sought clarification but did not receive satisfactory responses. The package was ultimately canceled, and the initial payment was not refunded. Aggrieved, she filed a consumer complaint in the South Goa District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”).
The Complainant argued that the price increase and the cancellation amounted to unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. She sought a refund of the initial payment. The Complainant claimed compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, and financial loss, each amounting to Rs. 3,00,000. She requested reimbursement for train travel expenses incurred due to the last-minute cancellation. Compensation was also sought for air travel expenses resulting from the situation. The Complainant sought litigation costs and additional costs to deter such malpractice in the future.
MakeMyTrip argued that the Complainant initially chose a holiday package with a specified cost of Rs. 142,912, and the balance amount was not paid. They stated that the first installment was non-refundable as it was used to book hotels and other facilities. They further claimed that they had informed the Complainant about the possibility of cancellation due to the pandemic. They argued that the package was canceled due to non-payment of the outstanding amount, as per their policy. Further, there was no deficiency in their service and no quantified loss was suffered by the Complainant.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission noted that this price hike had a significant impact on the Complainant's travel plans and budget, causing distress. Consequently, the District Complainant decided to cancel the package, citing the unreasonable price increase as the primary reason. The District Commission noted that the cancellation was not due to non-payment, as argued by MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd., but was a direct result of the price hike.
Therefore, it held that MakeMyTrip engaged in unfair trade practices by significantly increasing the price of the holiday package after the initial payment was made. Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant and ordered MakeMyTrip to refund the initial payment of Rs. 48,000 to the Complainant. It also ordered MakeMyTrip to compensate complainant Rs 50,000 for mental agony, physical harassment, and financial loss and Rs 10,000 for litigation cost.
Case Title: Dr. Belinda Viegas Mueller and others vs MakeMyTrip India and others
Case No.: Complaint No. 19/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: S. Borkar
Advocate for the Opposite Party: Vedraj Toraskar