MakeMyTrip and GoFirst 
News

Consumer forum slaps ₹19k penalty on MakeMyTrip, Go First after flight rescheduling disrupts Thailand trip

Satyendra Wankhade

A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh recently imposed a fine of ₹19,000 on travel booking giant MakeMyTrip and Go First airlines after a series of flight cancellations and rescheduling resulted in a family missing part of their planned holiday in Thailand [Amir Kohar v MakeMyTrip and Anr.].

A Coram of President Pawanjit Singh and members Surjeet Kaur and Suresh Kumar Sardana observed that neither MakeMyTrip nor Go First could evade their liability under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.

"...neither OP-1, being e-commerce entity, nor OP-2, being airlines of the subject product, can escape from their liability, especially when both the OPs are duty bound to provide service to the consumer as provided under The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020," the order dated October 1 stated.

The Commission was hearing a complaint filed by a Chandigarh resident explaining how a vacation with his family in April 2023 was disrupted due to repeated changes to their flight schedule.

He had booked tickets through MakeMyTrip for Go First's flight from New Delhi to Phuket in Thailand for April 1, 2023. He had also reserved accommodations in Krabi through MakeMyTrip, while the stay in Phuket was booked through another service.

However, just weeks before their departure, Go First informed the complainant that the flight was cancelled due to "operational reasons" and provided an alternative flight departing 3 hours and 40 minutes later. This flight was also subsequently cancelled, and another rescheduled flight was offered for April 2, 2023.

This resulted in the family missing their planned hotel stay in Krabi on April 1 and losing part of their prepaid booking in Phuket.

The complainant argued that both MakeMyTrip and Go First were responsible for the inconvenience and financial loss he faced. He claimed that the rescheduling resulted in additional costs for extending their stay in Krabi, as well as the loss of a night’s stay in Phuket, which he could not utilize due to the flight delays.

In response to the complaint, MakeMyTrip contended that as a mere intermediary, it held no responsibility for the disruptions caused by GoFirst. The company argued that it only facilitated the booking process and had no control over airline operations or refunds, as per their user agreement.

GoFirst, on the other hand, did not appear for the hearings and the case proceeded against them ex-parte.

The Commission found that both MakeMyTrip and Go First were liable for the disruption to the complainant's travel plans.

The Court acknowledged that MakeMyTrip, as the booking platform, could not completely absolve itself of responsibility. It noted that under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, e-commerce platforms like MakeMyTrip have a duty to ensure that refunds and services are provided promptly.

The Commission further observed that Go First's failure to appear in court and its successive flight cancellations demonstrated negligence on the airline’s part, amounting to service deficiency.

Accordingly, the Commission directed MakeMyTrip and Go First to jointly refund the complainant ₹8,900, which included ₹6,384 for the unused hotel stay in Phuket and ₹2,516 paid for rescheduling the stay in Krabi.

Additionally, the companies were ordered to pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

MakeMyTrip was represented by advocate Gaurav Deep Goel.

[Read Order]

Amit Kohar v MakeMyTrip and Anr..pdf
Preview

Kerala High Court refuses relief to MD accused of seeking sexual favors from employee

4-5 Gray’s Inn Square announces cross-jurisdiction alliance with Mumbai law firm VALS Legal

Delhi High Court seeks Delhi Police reply on plea to allow Sonam Wangchuk dharna at Jantar Mantar

Despite Supreme Court order, Delhi High Court Bar Association rejects reservation for women lawyers

Shilpa Shetty, Raj Kundra move Bombay High Court against eviction notice by ED

SCROLL FOR NEXT