Thomas Cook asked to pay Rs 90,000 for not considering ailing Hyderabad resident’s refund plea

Hyderabad: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad directed Thomas Cook (India) Limited to refund Rs 75,000 and pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs to a Hyderabad resident for “deficiency in service and unfair trade practices”.

Case details

Fascinated by the scenic beauty and culture of Bhutan, VR Venkatesh, and S Geetha planned a trip to the hill country. They contacted Thomas Cook (India) Limited, an online travel agent, that claims to be of international repute for offering package holidays worldwide.

The online travel agent quoted a package including hotels, sightseeing, meals, etc., for a total of Rs 1 lakh for two persons, with details provided for their trip from April 5 to April 13, 2023.

Complainant diagnosed with health issues

VR Venkatesh and S Geetha paid the total tour package amount on March 9 and March 25. The online travel agent issued a tour confirmation voucher on March 31. VR Venkatesh booked flight tickets paying about Rs. 29,000 with Indigo Airlines for travel from Hyderabad to Bagdogra, Bhutan, departing on April 5 and returning on April 12. However, on April 3, VR Venkatesh fell ill and was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. The doctors advised him not to travel for the next 10 days.

Indigo Airlines refunded the airfare, but Thomas Cook denied

Having no other option, VR Venkatesh and S Geetha cancelled their tour, informing both the airline and the online travel agent by enclosing the medical reports and requesting for refund of the amount paid towards airfare and the tour package. Considering their plea, Indigo Airlines refunded their airfare due to a medical emergency, while Thomas Cook (India) Limited declined to refund the tour package amount, citing their cancellation policy.

Despite VR Venkatesh’s situation being beyond their control, the online travel agent refused any refund. It was contrary to their policy which promised refunds in cases of health issues, which forms part of the brochure issued by the opposite party under the caption of 'Explore Bhutan (Via Bagdogra) land only’. It is mentioned "also note that in case of any restriction/health issue (guest gets covid +ve) we will be avoiding charging any cancellation basis documents have been shared. The credit note for the same amount will be issued which guests can use in the future.

VR Venkatesh and S Geetha alleged this is unfair and unreasonable. For no fault of them, the online travel agent must accommodate customers’ requests in unforeseen circumstances. They said the refusal to refund money tantamount to unfair business practices, and thus, they knocked on the doors of the District Consumer Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad for justice.

Thomas Cook (India) Limited submitted a written version denying all allegations of VR Venkatesh and S Geetha. The company submitted that the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor facts.

After hearing the arguments from both parties, the Commission noted that VR Venkatesh and S Geetha’s tour was canceled due to an unforeseen medical emergency. This medical condition rendered unfit to travel, thus warranted the cancellation of the tour. While the opposite party's cancellation policy does outline provisions for cancellation charges, it is pertinent to note that the policy also contains exceptions for health-related cancellations. The clause, though mentioning COVID-19 positive cases, can reasonably be interpreted to encompass any pressing health issue that impedes travel plans.

Commission found a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices

Considering the refusal of the online travel agent to refund the tour package amount despite VR Venkatesh's medical emergency and their acts of not resolving the issue of adherence to the cancellation policy's provisions amount to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The court directed Thomas Cook (India) Limited to refund Rs 75,000 or in an alternate issue a credit note to the same amount in favor of complainants for them to use in the future as per their cancellation policy.