The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, chaired by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, ruled that intermediaries are more than mere facilitators; they earn commissions and thus bear responsibility for managing refunds for canceled bookings.
Case Summary
The complainants booked flight tickets through Goibibo for travel from New Delhi to Edmonton, totaling Rs. 1,29,860 and Rs. 53,280. After Jet Airways ceased operations, the complainants sought a refund from Goibibo but received no response despite several attempts, including sending a legal notice. Dissatisfied, they filed a complaint with the District Commission, which was upheld. Goibibo’s subsequent appeal to the State Commission of Punjab was dismissed, prompting them to file a revision petition with the National Commission.
Goibibo’s Arguments
Goibibo contended that the State Commission overlooked its role as merely a facilitator between consumers and service providers, lacking control over the service provider’s actions or omissions, such as those of Jet Airways. They argued that their role was limited to confirming bookings and issuing vouchers, and any refunds or compensations for cancellations were the airline’s responsibility, not Goibibo’s. Goibibo cited previous rulings under the IT Act, claiming that as an intermediary, it should not be held liable for third-party issues. They also referred to the User Agreement, which states that Goibibo is not liable for flight non-operation by airlines.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission focused on whether Goibibo, as an intermediary, could be held accountable for issuing refunds when an airline fails to deliver its services. The Commission, considering Goibibo’s refund policies and a Jet Airways circular, rejected Goibibo’s claim of non-liability. It highlighted that Goibibo is not merely a facilitator but earns commissions, thus carrying the responsibility to handle refunds for canceled bookings. The National Commission upheld the State Commission’s decision, finding no jurisdictional errors or irregularities in the lower courts’ findings, which were supported by evidence and aligned with Supreme Court principles. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa