National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Shyam Sunder Goel & Anr. on 28 October, 2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT NEW DELHI
NC/RP/166/2022
(From the Order dated 08.01.2020 in F.A. No. 977/2017 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
WITH
IA/7745/2025 (EARLY HEARING OF STAY APPLICATION)
M/s. MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
Sarwan Kumar Sharma & Anr. ... Respondents
NC/RP/167/2022
(From the Order dated 08.01.2020 in F.A. No. 978/2017 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
WITH
IA/7743/2025 (EARLY HEARING OF STAY APPLICATION)
M/s. MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
Shyam Sunder Goel & Anr. ... Respondents
NC/RP/168/2022
(From the Order dated 08.01.2020 in F.A. No. 979/2017 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
WITH
IA/7744/2025 (EARLY HEARING OF STAY APPLICATION)
M/s. MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
Om Prakash Sharma & Anr. ... Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
Appeared at the time of arguments:
For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Nirmal Pandit, Advocate for R-1
NEMO for R-2
NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 1
PRONOUNCED ON: 28th October 2025
ORDER
JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
1. These three revision petitions arise out of three orders passed by the DCDRC, Jhajjar in three separate complaints filed by the respondent no. 1 in all the three revision petitions that were allowed by three separate orders of the same date 11.04.2017. Against the said orders the petitioner filed three separate appeals before the SCDRC, Haryana that were dismissed by three separate orders of the same date 08.01.2020. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present three revision petitions contending that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the complaints deserve to be dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings in short are that on 31.01.2016 all the complainants booked their flights on GoAir from Delhi to Bangalore as well as a return journey. The present dispute relates to the journey from New Delhi to Bangalore on 11.06.2016 for which e-tickets were purchased recording the schedule departure of the flight at 6.00 hours. According to the complainants, when they reached the airport at 5.05 hours, they were informed by the airport authorities that the flights had been rescheduled for 5.45 hours and since they had not reported within the scheduled time as prescribed, they were marked as "No Show" and therefore no boarding passes were issued to them. Resultantly, they missed their flight and had to acquire fresh tickets through Air India for which they had to spend a huge amount of Rs. 22,000/-, thereby causing not only financial losses, but NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 2 also subjecting them to a travel trauma on account of the reschedulement of the flight which was never intimated to them.
3. According to the complainants, they served a legal notice to the petitioner travel agents, who through their intimation dated 01.09.2016 informed that they were making arrangements for processing a full refund, but having failed to refund the amount or provide any redressal, the complaints were filed.
4. The two OPs in the complaint were the present petitioner as OP-1 and M/s. Go Airlines as OP-2. Notices were issued and both the OPs filed their separate written statements. The OP-2 namely M/s. Go Airlines filed their reply stating that the complainants had checked in and reported at 5.19 hours. They also stated in their reply that the message of the reschedulement of the flight to 5.45 hours, i.e. 15 minutes before the scheduled departure had been intimated on the respective mobile phones of all the ticket holders and SMS had also been sent on their mobile on 03.06.2016 itself. It was therefore the case of M/s. Go Airlines that they had informed the reschedulement well in advance and consequently, the complainants were required to report two hours in advance and report to the boarding gate 45 to 30 minutes before departure. The complainants checked in at the airport at 5.19 hours and therefore they had not arrived within the scheduled prescribed time nor did they report between 45 to 30 minutes of the departure time of 5.45 hours. It was also stated that even otherwise the complainants, assuming that the departure time was 6 hours, had not reached the Airport within the said NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 3 timings and consequently there was no option, but to indicate a No Show sign and consequently, boarding passes could not be issued to them on account of their own default in arriving late.
5. The present petitioner who was arrayed as OP-1 also filed a reply and took a stand that the e-ticket clearly prescribed the boarding, check in time that was not adhered to by the complainant. It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that after the tickets booked, it was the obligation of the Airlines to have intimated about the rescheduling of the flight that was done well in advance of 03.06.2016.
6. The petitioners also took a stand that according to the Civil Aviation requirements as framed under Rule 133A of the Air Craft Rules, the entire responsibility is of the Airlines and not of the petitioner. For this, two documents have been placed on record namely the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) circular issued by the Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation on 06.08.2010, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure P8 and another circular of the same Directorate dated 22.05.2008, according to which the onus of refund is on the Airlines that was obliged to complete the refund process. On the strength of these documents, the petitioners contend that they were under no obligation to either intimate any reschedulement nor are they in any way liable for refund to the complainants. They have also relied on the terms and conditions of the agreement that was also filed before the District Forum describing the responsibilities of the users under the agreement. It is urged that the said agreement also does not cast any NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 4 obligation on the petitioner to own any liability in respect of the obligations of the Airline in the event of any such complaint regarding missing of flight or change of schedule.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that none of these aspects have been either examined or assessed either by the District Commission or by the State Commission and an assumption has been made that it was a default on the part of the petitioners that resulted in the complainants having missed the flight and therefore the petitioners were liable for the said deficiency and accordingly awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the complainants. Learned counsel submits that there is no basis for award of any lumpsum amount and apart from the quantum being inappropriate, there was no liability that could be saddled on the petitioner in the light of what has been urged hereinabove. It is submitted that the liability, if any, is not of the petitioners and consequently, the complaint as against the petitioners deserves to be dismissed.
8. Notices were issued and an interim order was passed on 14.03.2022. The Execution Proceedings were continuing, as, according to the District Commission there was no stay order from this Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Bench and handed over the copy of the orders passed by the District Commission on 06.06.2025 and 16.07.2025 in the Execution matters that are pending before the District Commission, and has urged that the District Commission is proceeding with the executions and consequently, the matters should be disposed of finally. It NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 5 is in this background that the matter was considered on earlier occasions. Directions were issued to file the written submissions. The petitioner has filed their written submissions. When the matter was listed on 01.07.2025, notices were again issued and the counsel for the OPs Mr. Nirmal Pandit and Mr. Sanjay Pal were directed to be intimated keeping in view that the same names of counsel for the OPs were reflected in the earlier order dated 25.10.2024. The said notices were served and on behalf of the complainants, Mr. Nirmal Pandit has advanced his submissions contending that the revision petitions deserve to be dismissed. Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 appeared on 07.08.2025 and intimated that in spite of having received the notice, no instructions were forthcoming from the respondent no. 2 for the past one year. Accordingly, 13.10.2025 was fixed for final hearing on which date counsel for the respondent no. 1 appeared and advanced his submissions, but no one appeared for respondent no. 2. It was however informally intimated by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that it appears that the Go Airlines India Ltd. has undergone either liquidation or insolvency proceedings and consequently, it may be for the said reason, that they are not appearing or responding.
9. We have accordingly proceeded to hear the matter finally and orders were reserved for being pronounced on 22.10.2025. However, since the coram was not complete on the said date, the orders could not be pronounced and the matters were again fixed for pronouncement today.
NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 6
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As per the reply filed by the respondent no. 2 before the District Commission, there were certain terms and conditions according to which the Airlines would not be liable for any compensation or damages due to cancellation or reschedulement or delay or any flight. The said terms and conditions were extracted in paragraph 6 of their evidence affidavit which is extracted hereinunder:
GoAir will endeavor to operate the flights as per schedule, however GoAir reserves its right to cancel, reschedule or delay the commencement or continuance of any flight or alter the stopping place or deviate from the route of the journey without thereby incurring any liability in terms of compensation, damages or loss whether direct, indirect, consequential or special or otherwise in any manner whatsoever. In case of any such cancellation rescheduling of any flight due to any reason GoAir assumes no responsibility or liability for delay in carriage of baggage by air.
Further, in the event that the airline is unable to reach Customers on the numbers provided, then an email will be sent on the email address given by the Customer, and the Customer should exercise their options within 24 hours of email being sent, failing which the Customer shall be deemed to have accepted and the airline will conclude-as under:
the revised timing in case of rescheduled flight is accepted by the Customer and shall entertain further changes only as per standard policy that for cancelled flight, the Customer does not find it suitable to travel on another scheduled flight of GoAir on same day/ another day, subject to availability, and will thus cancel the PNR and process full refund to the mode of payment For Customers who book their flights well in advance of the scheduled departure date it is necessary that you re-confirm the departure time of your flight between 72 and 24 hours before the scheduled departure time, by NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 7 visiting our website at www.goair.in or calling our Call Centre at the contact numbers 092-2322-2111 and 020-2566-2111.
11. The evidence affidavit categorically states that the reschedulement of the flight advancing it only by 15 minutes, had been intimated on the mobile phones of the complainant coupled with and followed by an SMS on 03.06.2016. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the evidence affidavit of the Airlines is extracted hereinunder:
4. I say that the change in the time of departure was informed to the complaint on this registered mobile number by a phone call followed by a SMS, on 3rd of June 2016, which is 10 days prior to his departure date. Proof of which is attached and elaborated in below mentioned reply.
5. I say that after due diligence, the record which was made available from the ground staff, I would like to put it on record that the complainant reported at the check in-counter at 0519 hours which was beyond the reporting time i.e. 45 minutes prior to the time of departure. Attached herewith is print of our system record wherein we have clearly recorded that the Complainant reported to our counter at 05:19 hrs for checkin. Thus the status of the ticket of the complainant was converted in to 'NO SHOW', as they were late in reporting to the check-in. counter and the check-in counter was already closed by the time they reached. I say that that assuming even that the departure time of flight remained unchanged i.e. bam the Complainant were still late at the check in counter, and therefore were to denied boarding. Attached is the copy of Eticket wherein the clause 9 "CHECK-IN AND BOARDING TIME" very specifically mention that condition and reporting time for the checkin counters.
6. I say that the delay in reporting of the complainant is well documented and has been provided along with the reply as an exhibit described further below.
7. I say that due to failure of the complainant to report on time at the check-in counter before the closing of the boarding gates, the complainant missed their flight. I would further like to note that just as a goodwill gesture, this NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 8 opposite party no.2 offered a alternative flight to Bangalore from Delhi in the evening on the same day at no further cost on complaimentry basis, but it is to be noted that the complainant did not turn up for the this flight as well, thus showing no regards to the helping hand and good will gesture extended by us.
12. On the other hand, the complainants respondents have come up with a case that the petitioner who was the OP-1 had informed to the complainants through a message on 11.06.2016 that the departure time of the flight was 6.00 hours. Paragraph 3 of the complaint is extracted hereinunder:
3. That the respondent No. 1 informed to the complainant and his friends, through message on their mobiles on dated 11.06.2016 itself that the departure time of said flight is 06:00 hrs and arrival time was 08:45 hrs. and the same time is also mentioned over the Ticket.
The allegation was further narrated in paragraph 4 as follows:
4. That the complainant along with his friends. entered on Delhi Terminal at 05:05 a.m. and during entrance /checking, they were told by the Air Port officials that the departure time of said flight was 05:45 hrs instead of 06:00 hrs, so boarding pass can not be issued as they have already close time counter for the said flight and they would not be able to go through this flight.
Hence the complainant and his friends were forced to take Another Air India Flight No. AI 506 at 09.45 hrs. by spending a huge amount of more then Rs.22,000/-. Due to deficiency in service on the part of respondents, the complainant and his friends faced a grave inconvenience and did not reach at Bangalore in time, as they had to reach at Myra College of Business Management at Mysore to attend an important meeting there.
13. The Airlines, OP-2 had refuted these allegations as indicated above, whereas the petitioner who was the OP-1 took a plea that it was not the duty of the OP-1 or its obligation to inform about any such rescheduling of the flight. The reason given by the OP-1 was that they are mere facilitators and were not the actual service provider of the flight. It has also been stated in NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 9 paragraph 9 and 10 of the reply of the petitioner that the flight was preponed directly by the concerned Airlines and that the OP-1 had no knowledge of the same. Paragraph 9 and 10 of the reply of the petitioners before the District Commission is extracted hereinunder:
9. In this specific case, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the tickets in question were booked by OP No. 1 or not. This is also not disputed that the answering OP No. 1 acted merely as a booking facilitator which can be inferred from the modus of OP No. 1's business operation going at a very large scale on day to day basis. The OP No. 1 merely acts as a facilitator and is not the actual service provider. This Ld. DF may appreciate that the Complainant booked the air tickets in question from answering OP No. 1's website on 31.01.2016 scheduled to depart on 11.06.2016 at 06:00 Hours via Go Airlines Le. OP No. 2. The Complainant was also provided a confirmed e-ticket under this booking. However, the dispute herein was escalated by Complainant by not availing the confirmed booking on the pretext as alleged that the airline in which the Complainant had to travel was preponed by 15 minutes (change in schedule time from 06:00 Hours to 05:45 Hours) and the same was not in the knowledge of the Complainant due to which the Complainant could not board the flight. It is submitted that the flight in question was preponed directly by the concerned airline Le. OP No. 2 and the OP No. 1 had no knowledge of the same. It is pertinent to note that vide the e-ticket issued to the Complainant, the Complainant was duly informed to reach the airport 2 hours before the scheduled departure in order to avoid any difficulty/inability in availing the confirmed booking. It is further pertinent to note that it was clearly mentioned in the E-ticket which was sent to the Complainant that check-in starts 2hrs before the scheduled departure time and closes 60 minutes prior (while for domestic Flight counter closes 45-30 minutes prior). It is to be noted that answering O.P already kept extra time in sharing information to avoid such scenarios. It is submitted that regardless of the clear instructions, the Complainant chose to enter the airport at 05:05 Hours ie. just 55 minutes prior to the scheduled departure; to collect the boarding pass. Since, the flight timings were rescheduled by the concerned airlines i.e. OP No. 2 by preponing the flight to 05:45 Hours, the Complainant was informed by the airport officials that the counter for issuing the boarding NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 10 pass stands closed. Consequently, the Complainant had to buy new tickets at a higher price to travel from Delhi to Bangalore, as alleged. It is submitted that the Complainant with other two accompanying passengers did not turn up before 02 hours of departure as per the clear instructions to board the flight and hence forth the booking remained under NO-SHOW category.
Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No. 1 as OP No. 1 duly completed its limited duty of booking facilitator by making the desired confirmed booking and the present complaint filed impleading OP No. 1 is a clear afterthought in order to take advantage of the situation. The copy of the e-ticket issued to the Complainant is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-C. (10) It is further submitted that the OP No. 1 merely acts as a facilitator and has no control over the operations of the service providers; Go Airlines I.e. OP No. 2 in this case. The pre-ponent was at the end of the Airlines and it was Airlines duty to inform about any changes in the schedule of the Airlines as contact information of all the passengers travelling is duly available with the Airlines and in case it is not, it is their duty to make sure that the passengers are made aware of the same. Since, the pre-ponment of the flight was not in the knowledge of OP No. 1, OP No. 1 cannot be held liable in case the Complainant missed his flight due to the acts of OP No. 2.
14. Thus, the petitioner has taken a clear stand that it was neither their obligation nor had they any knowledge about the preponement and consequently, any such lapse was the total liability of the Airlines which in its turn had duly intimated the complainants. The petitioner has also brought on record the terms and conditions as contained in the e-ticket regarding the check-in and boarding and closing time. The same is extracted hereinunder:
Check-in and Boarding Closing Time Check-in commences two hours prior to the scheduled departure (3 hours in case of Srinagar and Jammu Airports). Check-in counter closes forty five minutes prior to the schedule departure. The customer is required to be present early at the check-in counter with luggage duly X-rayed and with all valid travel documents before the close of check-in counter.
NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 11 In order to avoid any last minute rush, customers are advised to report early at least 60 minutes prior to scheduled departure time (ninety minutes in case of Srinagar & Jammu Airports) at the check-in counter.
Boarding gate closes 25 minutes to the scheduled departure time. In case the customer delays or fails to show up in time at the check-in counter or at the boarding gate, than the customer will be treated as "No-Show" and gross fare paid will be forfeited except for the applicable Passenger Service Fee (PSF) and User Development Fee (UDF) which shall be refunded in the same mode of payment in which the payment was made originally received and only upon receiving such request in writing from the customer within 15 calendar days from the cancellation or "No Show"
15. It is the contention of the petitioner that these terms and conditions were well known to the complainants as it was a part of the e-ticket information. Resultantly, since the complainant themselves arrived at 5.19 hours at the check-in counter, they were not only beyond time and late as per the schedule of the departure at 5.45 hours, but also beyond the same even if the flight timing was 6 hours. Thus, according to the petitioner, intimation had been given by the Airlines and there were no corresponding obligation on the part of the petitioner and therefore according to the terms and conditions of the e- ticket itself, the default squarely lay on the complainants. Hence the Commissions below have committed a manifest illegality by saddling the petitioner with any liability.
16. Learned counsel then urged that the Civil Aviation Requirements clearly indicate that it is the duty of the Airlines to inform all flight details and accurate information directly to the passengers which in the present case was done. Denial of any boarding has to be compensated by the Airlines if there is any default on their part, and any refund was the obligation, as per the circulars NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 12 pertaining to the same, as referred to above. It is therefore submitted that on a combined reading on a procedure for refund under the circular of the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 22.05.2008 and the liability as per the circular dated 06.08.2010, is entirely on the Airlines. From a perusal of the circular dated 27.05.2008, clause 3(c) recites as under:
c) In case of purchase of ticket through travel agent/portal, onus of refund shall lie with the airlines as agents are their appointed representatives. The airlines shall ensure that the refund process is completed within 30 working days.
17. The petitioner therefore contends that it was keeping in tune with the aforesaid statutory guidelines framed that the information was given to the complainants on 01.09.2016 while replying to the legal notice that the petitioner had processed a full refund against the booking made by it. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid statement was not an admission of the liability of refund, but it was in accordance with the procedure which was usually followed, when such refunds are claimed, by way of information tendered to the Airlines. It is urged that the said reply is not an admittance of the liability and was a courteous reply intimating the complainants that the Airlines had been informed about the same.
18. We find that there is no denial by the Airlines in this regard and the Airlines has taken a clear stand in its reply as noted above that the complainants have clearly defaulted by not arriving within the schedule time of departure in spite of having been intimated of the rescheduling of the flight.
NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 13
19. There is however one aspect that needs to be mentioned and which is on record. The petitioner has nowhere disputed the fact of the information regarding the departure of the flight at 6 hours on 11.06.2016 being given by them. This message is available on record. There is no other or subsequent message given by the petitioner nor any information tendered by them about the change in the schedule of the flight.
20. On a perusal of these entire facts and the reference to the provisions under the guidelines, do not seem to have been either noticed or even discussed either by the District Commission or by the State Commission in the impugned orders dated 11.04.2017 and 08.01.2020 challenged herein.
21. It is by now well settled that non-consideration of relevant material is perversity and therefore findings of fact arrived at by omitting to consider any relevant material can be interfered with on the ground of material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. To this extent, we find the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner to be correct that these aspects as narrated hereinabove were well on record of the District Commission as well as of the State Commission that do not seem to have been assessed. We therefore find that saddling of the liability on the petitioner and exonerating the Airlines is imbalanced and disproportionate. We also find that there was no rebuttal on record nor is it available in the present proceedings or otherwise discussed in the impugned order to indicate that the complainants had rebutted the stand of the Airlines about having been communicated the reschedulement through mobile phone and the SMS. As NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 14 noted above, this was clearly pleaded by the Airlines and therefore in conclusion, we do find that the Airlines could not be saddled with any liability in the absence of any rebuttal to their contentions by the complainants as discussed above. The complainants, if checked-in at 5.19 hours, they were clearly behind schedule and had not reached the airport within time nor had they checked in for boarding as per the prescribed timings.
22. However, what we find is that with the information given of the timings of the departure of the flight by the petitioner at 6 hours, that is filed on record, indicates an information having received from the petitioner. In our considered opinion, if the petitioner had indicated the time of departure to the complainants through their website information, then it was their duty to have revised the timings if it had changed. The petitioner has absolved itself by stating that they had no information about reschedulement and secondly it was not their obligation to intimate the same. We do not find any such response given by the petitioner while replying to the legal notice on 01.09.2016. To the contrary, a perusal of the same indicates that the petitioner was apologetic and that it had undertaken a process to seek a full refund of the amount. They have further given an explanation that since it was the complainants who had defaulted in the timings, therefore, there was no liability on them. The contents of the said reply by the petitioner are extracted hereinunder:
NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 15 NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 16
23. The said reply / response even though denies liability, yet it also acknowledges that the delay was neither intentional, but at the same time there is no indication that it was not the obligation of the petitioner to intimate the reschedulement. This stand of having no obligation to intimate the reschedulement has been taken up as a defence after the complaint was filed. To our mind, the petitioner took up the stand that they had no information about the reschedulement only in the written version, which does not find any place in the above quoted letter dated 01.09.2016. Consequently, it would be NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 17 difficult to accept the contentions of the petitioner that they had no knowledge about the reschedulement. In these circumstances, this partial deficiency of not intimating the reschedulement by the petitioner seems to be established in the light of the pleadings on record as discussed above.
24. In the said background, we also find that the entire liability saddled on the petitioner of paying a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the complainants is disproportionate and unjustified. At the best, in our opinion, the complainants for this limited deficiency of the information not having reached about the reschedulement from the petitioner deserves to be proportionately compensated and for that we find it expedient to modify the impugned order by providing that the respondent / complainants would be entitled only to the refund of the actual amount paid by them as the fare from Delhi to Bangalore to GoAir.
25. As noted above, an interim order was passed by this Commission on 14.03.2022 and at the same time, the petitioner seems to have deposited 50% of the awarded amount before the State Commission as stated by them and recorded in our order dated 01.07.2025. The State Commission is therefore directed to transmit the said amount to the District Commission in the Execution Applications pending before the DCDRC, Jhajjar. The amounts deposited in all the three appeals shall be remitted immediately to the District Commission.
26. Out of the said amount, the actual refund of the price of the tickets paid by all the three complainants in respect of their journey from Delhi to NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 18 Bangalore on 11.06.2016 by GoAir shall be refunded. The balance of the amount, if any, after making the said payments to the complainants shall be refundable to the petitioner together with any interest accrued thereon.
27. The revision petitions are therefore partly allowed as per the directions hereinabove and the impugned orders of the District Commission dated 11.04.2017 and that of the State Commission dated 08.01.2020 impugned herein in all the three revision petitions stand modified accordingly.
.............................................
(A.P. SAHI, J) PRESIDENT .............................................
(BHARATKUMAR PANDYA)
MEMBER
Pramod/Court-1/CAV
NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 19