State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Make My Trip vs Mandeep Singh on 16 December, 2025
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
U.T., CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
Appeal No. : 405 of 2024
Date of Institution : 18.12.2024
Date of Decision : 16.12.2025
1. Make My Trip Pvt. Ltd. 19th floor, Tower A, B and C Epitom Building
No.5 DLF Cyber City Phase III Guru Gram-122002, through its
Authorized Signatory Puneet Chawla son of Sh. S. B. Chawla, aged 40
years working as Manager - Legal and authorized officer of Make My
Trip India Private Limited
2. MakeMyTrip Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.169-170, Ist floor Sector 8-C,
Chandigarh U.T. 160018 through its Authorized Signatory Puneet
Chawla son of Sh. S. B. Chawla, aged 40 years working as Manager -
Legal and authorized officer of Make My Trip India Private Limited
....Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2
Versus
1. Sh. Mandeep Singh son of Sh. Major Singh
2. Smt. Gurpreet Kaur wife of sh. Mandeep Singh
3. Tanveer Singh Dhaliwal (Minor) son of Sh. Mandeep Singh through his
father Sh. Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal all resident of H.No.41, Tehsil
Kharar, Firesepu Bangar SAS Nagar, Punjab and presently residing at
H.No.59, Dhanas, UT, Chandigarh
...Respondents/Complainants
4. VFS Global Unit No.B-209, Second floor Office Block-V, Plot No.178-
178-A, Industrial Area and Business Park Phase I, Chandigarh-
160002 through its Director/Manager/Authorized Party) Signatory
...Respondent/Opposite Party No.4
5. Rachna Gala, Senior International Holliday Expert of MakeMyTrip Pvt.
Ltd.. 19th floor, Tower A, B and C Epitom Building No.5 DLF Cyber
City Phase III Guru Gram-122002, India through its Director
Managing Authorized Signatory.
...Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.3
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER 2 ARGUED BY :-
Sh. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellants Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 Sh. Kritin Jain, Advocate proxy for Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4 Respondent No.5 ex-parte vide order dated 14.07.2025 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 - MakeMy Trip Pvt. Ltd. (appellants herein) for setting aside order dated 22.10.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'District Commission') vide which, Consumer Complaint bearing No.987 of 2022 filed by the complainants (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) has been allowed against the appellants including proforma respondent No.5 (opposite party No.3 before the District Commission), namely, Rachana Gala, their Senior international holiday expert, by granting following relief:-
"14. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.1 to 3 are directed as under:-
i. to refund ₹3,77,254/- to the complainants
alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from
the date of institution of the present consumer
complaint till onwards.
ii. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainants as
compensation for causing mental agony and
harassment;
iii. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.
15. This order be complied with by the OPs No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of litigation expenses.
16. Complaint qua OP No.4 stands dismissed."
2] In brief, the case of the complainants before the District Commission was that the opposite parties contacted the complainants telephonically and through e-mails in June 2022 regarding different 3 international tour packages and accordingly, the complainants booked a 7- days Europe tour package namely Swiss Paris Delight Group for two adults and one child from 25.09.2022 to 02.10.2022. The opposite parties confirmed the package including two flights, three hotels with daily changes, three activities, two transfers and visa assistance, for a total cost of ₹4,71,567/- plus ₹26,726/- as visa fee, subject to visa confirmation as per quotation Exhibit C-1 and booked hotels, flights, travel insurance and activities vide Booking I.D. No.NL2203553196454, against which, the complainants paid ₹4,71,567/- to opposite parties No.1 to 3. The package was confirmed by e-mail dated 01.09.2022 and as per instructions, the complainants submitted all relevant documents including passports and school NOC, where after opposite party No.4 arranged embassy appointments; however, no visa was received and on 25.09.2022, opposite party No.4 informed telephonically that the visa was refused and asked the complainants to collect their passports. Thereafter, despite requests for refund, opposite party No.3 only sent e-mail Exhibit C-12 stating that the refund process had been initiated but no refund was made even after legal notice dated 19.11.2022, compelling the complainants to file a consumer complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3] On the other hand, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that they provided proper assistance to the complainants in submitting the visa application but denied having committed visa confirmation, as they could only assist in the process. It was stated that the confirmed bookings of hotels, flights etc. were duly informed to the complainants and the confirmed package was shared through e-mail, thereby fulfilling and discharging their obligations. It was further stated that the complainants were requested to submit visa applications around 30.06.2022 to allow time for resolving any issues but they submitted the same in August, 2022 and insisted on filing at Chandigarh, instead of Delhi consulate, despite advice for faster processing and thus suffered due to their own action and inaction.
4It was further stated that they had no control over the actions of the embassy or visa issuing authority and once the application was filed in August, 2022, their obligation stood discharged, hence, there was no deficiency in service and all other allegations were denied.
4] Opposite Party No.4, in its reply, stated that it is only a commercial company working in partnership with embassies to provide support services to visa applicants and that visa applications are processed and decided solely by the concerned embassy, with none of its role in influencing the outcome. It was stated that it is bound to forward the application along with requisite fee to the concerned embassy without delay and denied any deficiency on its part.
5] The complainants file rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and repudiating those as stated in the written versions of the opposite parties.
6] The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases before the District Commission.
7] The District Commission, after hearing arguments and considering the documentary evidence on record, allowed the consumer complaint, as stated above.
8] The order has been assailed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 on the ground that the District Commission, while passing the impugned order dated 22.10.2024, has failed to appreciate that the visa was rejected by the French Embassy for reasons solely attributable to the complainants, a fact which the Commission itself acknowledged by observing that the appellants had taken all reasonable steps to assist in obtaining the visa and therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the appellants, as consistently held in precedents including Cox & Kings Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Geeta Agrawal & Ors. decided on 29.05.2018. It has further been stated that the District Commission further erred in holding that travel arrangements should be finalized only after grant of visa, ignoring the well-established industry practice that hotel bookings and flight tickets are mandatory documents for 5 visa processing and that identical packages booked by other travellers were granted visas. It has further been stated that the District Commission also failed to consider the specific and rare reasons for visa rejection mentioned in the letter dated 26.09.2024, namely prior 90-day stay in the Schengen area and an SIS alert, which were never disclosed to the appellants and would have led to refusal to process the booking. It has further been stated that the District Commission further ignored that advance bookings are a standard industry practice enabling affordable packages that the appellants disclaimed liability for visa rejection under the binding contractual terms and that the visa rejection occurred after the scheduled travel date solely due to the complainant's delay in submitting the visa application despite repeated requests to complete it by 30.06.2022. Even otherwise, the observation that advance bookings amounted to deficiency is erroneous as travellers knowingly take such risk to avail cheaper prices and appellant No.3 cannot be personally held liable as she acted merely as an employee in due course of employment. Lastly prayer for setting aside the impugned order and dismissal of the consumer complaint has been made by the appellants.
9] On behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 - complainants, it has been contended that the opposite parties confirmed the package, booked flights, hotels, insurance and activities and received the entire tour amount, however, despite submission of all requisite documents and passports as per instructions and embassy appointments arranged through opposite party No.4, the visa was refused on 25.09.2022, just on the date of travel. It was further argued that even thereafter the opposite parties failed to refund the amount, despite assurances and legal notice, thereby committing deficiency in service and indulging in unfair trade practice. It has further been contended that the District Commission has given very well detailed and reasoned judgment, which cannot be overlooked and the District Commission has discussed all the issues/contentions raised by the appellants. Lastly prayer for dismissal of the appeal with costs has been made by respondents No.1 to 3 - complainants.
610] After hearing the Learned Counsels for the parties and having gone through the grounds of appeal, documentary evidence on record and the impugned order very carefully, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. At the outset, it is evident that the factual matrix is largely undisputed. The appellants admittedly approached the complainants, marketed the Swiss Paris Delight Group tour package, accepted the entire tour cost of ₹4,71,567/- in advance and proceeded to make bookings of flights, hotels, insurance and activities even before the visa was granted. It is also not in dispute that the complainants, despite having paid a substantial amount, could not avail a single service under the tour package as the visa was refused on the very date of travel i.e. 25.09.2022. The principal ground urged by the appellants is that visa rejection was beyond their control and was attributable solely to the complainants. This argument, though attractive at first blush, does not withstand deeper scrutiny when examined in the light of the findings of the District Commission and settled principles governing consumer disputes. It is well settled that while grant or refusal of visa is undoubtedly the sovereign function of the receiving country, the role of a travel agent does not end merely by shifting the entire burden upon the consumer, especially when the agent has collected the full consideration and finalized non-refundable bookings in advance without adequately safeguarding the consumer's interest.
11] The District Commission has rightly observed that though a travel agent cannot guarantee grant of visa, it is expected to act with due diligence, care and fairness. In the present case, the appellants admittedly collected the entire tour amount in advance and hurriedly finalized bookings without adequately covering the risk of visa refusal. This conduct cannot be brushed aside by simply invoking "industry practice." Industry practice, howsoever prevalent, cannot override consumer protection principles, particularly when such practice results in one-sided risk allocation, where the consumer bears the entire loss while the service provider suffers none.
7The reliance placed by the appellants on Cox & Kings Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Geeta Agrawal & Ors. is misplaced. Each case under the Consumer Protection Act turns on its own facts. In the present case, the District Commission itself recorded that despite best efforts, visa could not be obtained, however, the deficiency was not attributed to failure in visa procurement but to the unfair manner in which the appellants structured the transaction by collecting the full amount, making advance bookings and not ensuring any meaningful safeguard or refund mechanism in the event of visa refusal. Therefore, the ratio of the cited judgment does not advance the appellants' case.
12] The contention that travel arrangements must necessarily be finalized prior to visa grant as part of visa documentation is also misconceived. While it may be true that tentative bookings or reservations are often required for visa processing, it does not justify collecting the entire tour cost and making firm, non-refundable bookings without clearly insulating the consumer from foreseeable risks. The District Commission has correctly noted that prudent business practice demands that either bookings be made post visa approval or the risk of refusal be adequately covered, especially when strict visa regimes like Schengen are involved.
13] The argument that other travellers who booked identical packages were granted visas is wholly irrelevant. Visa decisions are individual-centric and depend upon personal travel history, immigration records and background checks. The success of other applicants does not absolve the appellants from liability arising out of their own deficient conduct towards the complainants.
14] Much emphasis has been laid by the appellants on the alleged rare reasons for visa rejection including prior stay in Schengen territory and SIS alert. Even assuming these reasons to be correct, the appellants have failed to demonstrate how these factors exonerate them from liability under consumer law. The complainants were lay consumers and not expected to be fully conversant with technical visa rejection grounds. On the contrary, as professionals in the travel industry, the appellants were expected to exercise 8 higher standards of care and caution before accepting the entire consideration and making irreversible bookings.
15] The plea of the appellants that the complainants delayed submission of visa applications also does not inspire confidence. Despite alleged delays, the appellants continued to retain the entire amount and proceeded with bookings. Having done so, they cannot later take shelter behind alleged delay to deny responsibility. If timely submission of visa application was so critical, the appellants ought to have either refused to proceed with bookings or clearly warned the complainants of the financial consequences, which admittedly was not done. Equally untenable is the reliance on contractual clauses disclaiming liability for visa rejection. It is trite law that unfair, one-sided contractual terms cannot be enforced blindly, particularly where they defeat the very purpose of consumer protection legislation. The District Commission has also taken note of additional documents filed by the appellants, namely Annexures R-6 and R- 9, which were found to be unrelated to the present transaction. This conduct further weakens the appellants' credibility and reinforces the finding of unfair trade practice.
16] As regards the quantum of relief, the District Commission adopted a balanced and reasonable approach by ordering refund after deduction of 20% as service charges, thereby recognizing that some administrative efforts may have been undertaken by the appellants. The direction to refund ₹3,77,254/- cannot be said to be excessive, arbitrary or perverse.
17] The plea that appellant No.3 cannot be personally held liable has no bearing on the merits of the appeal, particularly when the liability has been fastened primarily upon OPs No.1 to 3 jointly, and the findings are based on collective conduct.
18] On the other hand, the submissions advanced on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 - complainants carry considerable weight. They have successfully demonstrated that despite payment of a substantial amount, 9 they were left remediless, deprived of the tour as well as their money and were forced into litigation due to the appellants' failure to act fairly and responsibly. The District Commission has passed a detailed, reasoned and well-considered order after appreciating the entire material on record, which does not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
19] In view of the foregoing discussion, this Commission finds that the District Commission committed no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 22.10.2024. The grounds raised by the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 are devoid of merit and are hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order is upheld. No order as to costs.
20] Pending application(s), if any, in this appeal also stands dismissed having been rendered infructous.
21] Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
22] File be consigned to Record Room after completion.
Pronounced 16.12.2025.
(PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER *Ad* 10