State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. vs Sri. Bm Somashekhararadhya on 19 February, 2026
sc /29 / A/2482 /2023
Filed on: t9.L2.2023
Disposed on: 19.02.2026
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF FEBRUARY,20.26
CORAM: HON'BLE SRI.RAVI SHANKAR' JITDICIAL MEMBER
and
HON'BLE SMT. SI'NITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI . LIIDY MEMBER
scl29lN24a2l2023
BETWEEN:
Make My Trip (lndia) Rrt. Ltd.,
18tt' Floor - Tower A, B and
19th Floor - Tower A, B, C
Building No.S, DLF Cyber CitY,
DLF Phase-lll, Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122 OO2,
By Authorized Signatory.
-- Appellant
(Rep. by0 Mr.Rishabha Raj Thakur, Advocate)
AIVD
1. Sri B M SomashekhararadhYa,
S/o Late Sh.B.Muddiah,
Aged about 75 Years,
Resident at No.1 ACC22I,
1"t A.C.Cross, 2"d Main, Kasthuringar,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
2. Jet Airways,
Head Office at
Siroya Centre, Andheri,
Mumbai - 400 099.
--- Respondent
(R-1 appeared In-personf
(R-2 dispensed vide order dated 25.03.20251
sc/2e /A/2482/2023
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA CHANN A BAGEWADI LAD Y MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite party No'l being aggrieved by the Order dated 26.07'2023 passed by the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.1454 l2}tg and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission by allowing appeal, in the interest of justice and equitY.
2. T]ne brief facts of the case are as under; The complainant had booked Air Tickets on 18'02'20i9 through online portal of Opposite Party No.1 from Bengaluru to Boston, USA for travelling on 28'05.2019 and return on 06.08.2019 by paying an amount of Rs.S1,152/- to attend his Grandson's Graduation Ceremony in Boston, USA' The complainant received E-mail regarding cancellation of Jet Airways flight on 2O.O4.2O19. Hence, no other way complainant re-booked the Air Tickets of British Airways by paying an amount of Rs'81,944 l- au,;rd incurred the loss of Rs.32,792 I -. Subsequently, the complainant again received the message from Opposite Party No.2 that the 9W236 from Bengaluru to Amsterdam, on 28.05'2019 is cancelled, kindly contact the Travel Agent for return of money paid' Hence, the complainant wrote a letter on 16'08'2019 to Opposite Party No.1 through registered post but no reply from other side. Hence, tJle complainant left with no other alternative 2 sc/2e/A12482/2023 to approach the Commission for the redressal of grievance under Consumer Protection Act for defrciency of service and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice of the District Commission, the Opposite Party No.l appeared through counsel and filed version. The Opposite Party No.1 admitted booking of the ticket by the complainant and denied all other allegations' Further the Opposite Party No.l contended that it is only an online portal which provides service to book travel tickets, accommodation, holiday packages etc' The complainant booked tickets through their online portal, but it is the Jet Airtines/Opposite Party No.2 who cancelled the booked air tickets. Hence, the Opposite Party No. 1 is not liable for any refund or compensation and prays to dismiss the complaint'
4. The Opposite Party No.2 was impleaded by an order dated 20.10.2022 and notice was issued by the District Commission. The said notice was served on Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel but failed to file the version. Hence, version of Opposite Party No.2 taken as Nil on 19.12.2022 by the District Commission'
5. After trial the District Commission allowed the complaint in part.
6. Aggrieved by the said order the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 preferred this APPeal.
7. Heard from both side.
J sc/ze/A12482/2023
8. Perused the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order passed by the District Consumer Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is not in dispute that ttre Respondent No.1 had booked Air Tickets on l8.O2.2olg through the Appellant from Bengaluru to Boston, USA for travelling on 28'05'2019 and return on 06.08.2019 by paying an amount of Rs'51'152/-' The Respondent No.l received email of the cancellation of Jet Airways flight on 2O.O4.2OL} and subsequently the Respondent No' 1 received another message from Opposite PartyNo.2 that the Air Line 9W236 from Bengaluru to Amsterdamon28.05.20lgiscancelled.Theallegationsof from the Respondent No'l is that after receiving the message Respondent No.2, the Respondent No'1 issued a letter to the of Appellant for refund of the amount of the tickets' Despite repeated requests the Appetlant had neither refund the tickets amount nor provided any alternative arrangements' Appellant shifted the blame on the Respondent No'2 stating that the Appellant is only an agent of Respondent No'2' It is the Respondent No'2 who cancelled the flights' But' due to the act of the Appellant, with no other alternative Respondent No1 booked another flight tickets by paytng an amount of Rs.81,944 l- *d incurred a loss of Rs'32'7921-'
9. Perused the order of the District Commission we noticed that Appellant is an online portal and through the Appellant, the Respondent No.1 had booked the tickets ofJet Airways. Subsequently, the said flights came to be cancelled by Jet Airways without assigning any reasons' We agreed
-.L 4 sc/29 / A/2482/2023 that the Appellant functions only as an intermediary platform and does not exercise any operational control over the Airlines listed on its portal. Also, the Appellant had no role in the cancellation of the flights. The Appellant's role is limited to providing a platform for booking tickets, accommodation etc. The Respondent to support their claim had produced "Indian Express Newspaper" extract dated 11.09.2022 before District Commission wherein the State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh had allowed the similar complaint in which the Opposite Parties are one and the same i.e., Make My Trip and Jet Airways and awarded the refund of the booking amount of the complainant along with compensation. Also observed that insolvency proceeding were ongoing against the Jet Airways at the relevant time and Appellant filed customers claims including the present complaint was well in the knowledge about that. Inspite of that the Appellant continued to display and allow the booking for Jet Airways on its portal without verification regarding the status of the Airlines. Such conduct of the Appellant indicates lack of due diligence expected from the service provider. Hence, even though primary liability arises on Jet Airways/Respondent No.2, the Appellant cannot absolve its responsibility stating that Appellant is only an intermediary and online portal. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
5sc/29 /A/2482/2023 ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. The impugned order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No. 1454/2019 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shatl be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the Respondent No. 1 /Complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well concerned District Consumer Commission.
I-\ (RA
t
/suM"A
LADY MEMBER JUDICULMEMBER
.SJ-
6