State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Alka Bansal vs Travel Spirti International Pvt. Ltd. on 8 April, 2026
FA/39/2023 MS. ALKA BANSAL VS. M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 01.02.2023
Date of Hearing: 11.02.2026
Date of Decision: 09.04.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO. 39/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
1. MS. ALKA BANSAL,
D/O LATE MR. AJAY K. BANSAL,
R/O 4025, SEC-B, PKT-5 AND 6,
VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI-110070.
Email: alkabansal@ rediffmail.com,
2. MR. ABHISHEK BANSAL,
S/O LATE MR. AJAY K. BANSAL,
R/O 4025, SEC-B, PKT-5 AND 6,
VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI-110070.
E-mail: bansalabhishek06@ gmail.com.
(Through: Mr. Abhishek Bansal, Advocate)
...Appellants
VERSUS
M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,
TANEJA HOUSE I-84, 2ND FLOOR,
LAJPAT NAGAR-II,
NEW DELHI-110024.
(Through: Mr. Humraz, Advocate)
...Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 10
FA/39/2023 MS. ALKA BANSAL VS. M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Appellant No. 2 in person.
Mr. Guriqbal Singh Patalia, Counsel for the Respondent. (appeared
through VC)
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, (PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"The Complainant has filled the present complaint seeking relief against OP i.e. Travel Spirit International Pvt. Ltd. claiming Rs 29,000/-
1. It is the case of the Complainant that she had booked a Chardham yatra from Delhi to Chardham Le Kedarnath, Gangotri. Yamunotri and Badrinath and was scheduled back to Delhi on 02.06.2013 for 2 persons and the total amount paid was Rs. 36,900/- The OP had promised a deluxe package which included breakfast, lunch and dinner and good hotel.
2. The trip was scheduled on 15.06.2013 but was cancelled on 16.06.2013 due to floods. It is the case of the Complainant that though the OP had refunded some people who were travelling with the OP but refund has not been made to the Complainant.
3. It is stated by the Complainant that she had enquired on 14.06.2013 whether it was safe to depart and she was told that it was safe whereas at that time the other tour operators have already cancelled the tours. She was then told by the OP that the money would be refunded but the same has not been refunded till now to the Complainant.
4. OP i.e Travel Spirit International Pvt. Ltd in their written statement have stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any cause of action and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP has not DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 10 FA/39/2023 MS. ALKA BANSAL VS. M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 denied that a booking was taken from the Complainant for 2 people for Chardham yatra at the cost of Rs.36,900/- for 10 days.
5. The money was deposited in the account of the agent M/s Mahalaxmi Tour and Travels. It is further stated that the Complainant along with the travel companion left for tour from Delhi in an Innova car arranged by OP on 15.06.2013 and reached Haridwar on the same day but when they left for the yatra on 16.06.2013 due to sudden heavy floods and natural calamity in Uttarakhand, the trip had to be cancelled. It is stated that this was an act of God which was outside human control.
6. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service by the OP as the OP had made all booking confirmed the same and even sent the Complainant till Haridwar in an Innova however, whatever happened on 16.06.2013 was not within the control of the OP. It is further stated that as per the cancellation policy of OP if the party cangels that package in less than 15 days prior to the commencement of tour then in that case the cancellation fee of 100% of the tour cost is applicable and the party is not entitled to any refund. It is stated that the said cancellation policy was duly served in writing to the Complainant at his residence at Vasant Kunj on 03.06.2013 along with other final documents.
7. It is stated by the OP that Innova was arranged for the Complainant and her companion on 15.06.2013 from Delhi which reached Haridwar on the same day and there where she had a comfortable stay and dinner. Next morning on 16.06.2013 after having breakfast the Complainant and the travel companion left for Haridwar for Barkot however, when they reached Barkot, reports of flash flood cloudburst was received and by the time the Complainant reached Haridwar, all hotels were full and there was no accommodation available even then OP arranged a hotel lobby for its clients and OP considered it their response responsibility to get them back from Haridwar to Delhi safe and sound which they did.
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 10 FA/39/2023 MS. ALKA BANSAL VS. M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
8. It is stated by the OP that an amount of Rs. 33,660/- was made by the OP to their agent M/s Mahalaxmi Tour and Travels Ltd. and the deposit slip is annexed as Annexure 2.
9. It is stated by the OP that refund is not possible as the OP has already paid the money to its agent who had booked the hotels as per the schedule of the Complainant and the booking was done by its agent M/s Mahalaxmi Tour and travels at Haridwar, Barkot, Naitala, Guptakashi Kedarnath, Badrinath and Srinagar are annexed as Annexure 4 and the OP has only kept Rs. 2900/- with it towards facilitation services rendered.
10. It is stated that the amount which was refunded to one family belonging to South India as their deposit was lying with the OP on 11.06.2013 therefore the same was refunded.
11. It is stated that as a matter of courtesy and goodwill, same trip was offered to the Complainant from 25.05.2014 and it was informed to the Complainant that the trip now would be for 15 days due to bad road conditions which was accepted by the Complainant thereafter the OP confirmed transport and hotel bookings for the Complainant. later on the trip was cancelled by the Complainant for unknown reasons. Copies of the relevant emails are annexed as Annexure 5."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 17.01.2023, whereby it held as under:
"Both the Complainant and the OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written submissions. This commission is of the view that initially the trip was cancelled because of factors which were beyond the control of both the Complainant as well as the OP. It appears that the case of the Complainant is different from that of the family from the South India whose money was refunded as OP offered to the Complainant to have the same trip the following year to which the Complainant agreed. The Complainant also booked the tickets for the said trip following year and thereafter voluntarily without assigning any reason cancelled DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 10 FA/39/2023 MS. ALKA BANSAL VS. M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 the trip. Therefore, we are of the view that the Complainant has not been able to establish any deficiency on the part of the OP and that the complaint being devoid of any merits is to be dismissed."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant No.1 has preferred the present Appeal submitting that the District Commission erred in holding deficiency on the part of the Respondent, as the Respondent failed to provide the promised private vehicle i.e. Innova, and instead forced a shared, congested vehicle i.e. Tavera. The Counsel for the Appellant No. 1 has further submitted that the Respondent overcharged for vehicle rates and lied about the actual costs and trip durations (claiming 15 days for what was actually an 8-day itinerary). Further, it is submitted that the Appellant No. 1 had to pay for her own breakfast and lunch, despite having paid in advance, and the Respondent never reimbursed the same. It is also submitted that the Appellant and her mother were not even given a room and had to stay in the hotel lobby. Additionally, it is submitted that the Respondent has refunded the amount to fellow travelers, a South Indian and a Maharashtrian family but not to the Appellant No. 1. Lastly, it is submitted that the Respondent failed to provide the Cancellation Policy to the Appellant No. 1 at the time of booking. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellants have prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
4. The Respondent has filed the Reply to Appeal, denying all the contentions and submissions of the Appellants and submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said impugned order. Further, it is submitted by the Respondent that a 100% refund is applicable only when the cancellation takes place less than 15 days prior to the commencement of the tour. Additionally, it is submitted that the payment for making all the arrangements at Haridwar, Barkot, Naitala, Guptakashi Kedarnath, Badrinath and Srinagar was made by the DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 10 FA/39/2023 MS. ALKA BANSAL VS. M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 Respondent to the agent of the Respondent, namely M/s. Mahalaxmi Tour and Travels Ltd, therefore the refund of the entire amount was not possible. Pressing the aforesaid contentions and submissions, the Respondent has prayed for setting aside the present Appeal.
5. Written Arguments of the Appellants are on record, wherein, the contents of the Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered.
6. Written Arguments of the Respondent are on record, wherein, the contents of the Reply to Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The Counsel for the Respondent has relied on the following judgments in support of his case:
i) Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Ors. as reported in (2001) 1 SCC 66
ii) The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata & Ors.
vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. as reported in AIR 2020 SC 678
iii) Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh as reported in AIR 2005 (NOC) 128 (DEL)
iv) Inter Globe Aviation vs. N. Satchidanand as reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463
7. We have perused the material available on record.
8. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission has erred in not establishing deficiency on the part of the Respondent.
9. To address this issue, we deem it necessary to refer to Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as under:
"(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;"
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 10 FA/39/2023 MS. ALKA BANSAL VS. M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
10.The aforesaid definition of "deficiency" under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 referred to above clarifies that any dereliction with respect to any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in performance required by law in pursuance of a contract of service on the part of the service provider amounts to deficiency in service.
11.We deem it necessary to refer to the Cancellation Policy of the Respondent (annexed as Annexure P-20 alongwith the Appeal on page no. 99), which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
12.From the bare perusal of the aforesaid Cancellation Policy of the Respondent, it is clear that the cancellation fee of the tour cost would be 100% if the cancellation takes place less than 15 days prior to the commencement of the tour, i.e. no refund will be given to the customer.
DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 10 FA/39/2023 MS. ALKA BANSAL VS. M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
13.Further perusal of record reflects that the Appellant No. 1 was already at Haridwar on 15.06.2013, and the Respondent cancelled the remainder of the trip on 16.03.2013 due to heavy flooding and calamity in Uttarakhand. It is clear that such calamities are an "Act of God" and the Respondent cannot be held responsible for the cancelling the tour of the Appellant No. 1 and her mother.
Since the said cancellation of the tour was done during the tour itself, no refund is possible as per the Cancellation Policy.
14.Regarding the Cancellation Policy, the Appellants have submitted that the said invoice and the ticket was delivered to the residence of the Appellant No. 1 on 04.06.2013, therefore the Cancellation Policy was not delivered to the Appellant No. 1 on 03.06.2013, however, as per e-mail dated 01.03.2013, the Respondent had intimated the Appellant No. 1 of the Cancellation Policy, wherein it was clearly stated that no amount shall be refunded if the cancellation is within 15 days prior to the commencement of the tour. Therefore, the submission of the Appellants that the Cancellation Policy was not received by the Appellant No. 1 is answered in the negative.
15.Secondly, it has also been submitted by the Appellant No. 1 that the fellow travelers, i.e. a South Indian family and a Maharashtrian family were both given their refund while the Appellant No. 1 has not been reimbursed for the expenses made by her. However, on perusal of record, we find that no Statement of Account has been relied upon and therefore, merely harping on not having received the refund does not constitute to a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.
16.Thirdly, it had also been submitted by the Appellants that the Respondent had promised a private Toyota Innova car for travel, however, a shared Chevrolet Tavera was provided to the Appellant No. 1 instead, and the Appellant No. 1 was overcharged. The Appellant has relied on an e-mail dated 21.05.2014 sent by an DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 10 FA/39/2023 MS. ALKA BANSAL VS. M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 employee of the Respondent, namely, Mr. Praveen, wherein it is clearly stated that the Chardham Yatra Package costs Rs. 33,600/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Thousand and Six Hundred Only) and the amount payable to Mr. Rahul Beri is Rs. 11,500/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand and Five-Hundred Only), therefore the calculation of the Appellant No. 1 for the amount to be deducted by the Respondent is baseless and unfounded as the same is without cogent evidence to prove the veracity of the said claim of the Appellants. Therefore, due to lack of evidence and other necessary documents proving the contentions of the Appellants, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent.
17.Additionally, perusal of record also reflects that the Appellant No. 1 had contacted the Respondent and its many employees requesting for her refund at least 53 times. The said requests also included reimbursement requests for the expenses pertaining to breakfast and lunch after cancellation of her tour, however, no receipts for the said expenses have been placed by the Appellants on record. Merely harping on reimbursement requests is not adequate for receiving the same when the Appellant No. 1 has failed to adduce any receipts or any other evidence towards the Appellant No. 1 having made the said additional expenses on record. Hence, the submission of the Appellants that the District Commission erred in not holding deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent has been answered in the negative.
18.In view of the forgoing, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22&23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016.
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 10 FA/39/2023 MS. ALKA BANSAL VS. M/S. TRAVEL SPIRIT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
19.Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
20.Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
21.A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on https://e-jagriti.gov.in for perusal of the parties. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned District Commission.
22.File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On: 09.04.2026 LR-DK DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 10