In a significant ruling, the Ernakulam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered a holiday firm to pay a customer a total of ₹2.15 lakhs. This amount covers a full refund and compensation, stemming from the company’s alleged failure to deliver on the services guaranteed by a purchased holiday membership.
The verdict came after Jestina Fernandez from Maradu filed a petition against Doves Vacation, a Maharashtra-based company. Ms. Fernandez had invested ₹1.89 lakhs in 2022 for a holiday membership, trusting the firm’s promises of accommodation and various travel services. The Commission, led by President D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., carefully reviewed her complaint.
However, Ms. Fernandez’s dream holiday turned into a nightmare. She reported that Doves Vacation consistently failed to secure bookings, always claiming ‘peak period’ unavailability without offering any reasonable alternatives or booking confirmations. Frustrated by the constant denial of service, she requested a membership cancellation and refund in February 2024. Shockingly, the company agreed to cancel but flat-out refused a refund. This prompted Ms. Fernandez to escalate the matter to the Commission, accusing the firm of severe service deficiency and engaging in misleading and unfair business practices, demanding her money back with interest.
Doves Vacation’s silence spoke volumes. The company failed to present its side of the story within the legal timeframe, leading the Commission to proceed ex parte. This lack of response was interpreted as an admission of the allegations, unequivocally confirming a clear deficiency in service and a pattern of unfair trade practices. The Commission acknowledged the significant financial loss and emotional distress inflicted upon Ms. Fernandez due to the firm’s actions.
The Commission’s detailed findings highlighted several critical points. It firmly stated that the company’s ‘persistent refusal to provide accommodation, repeatedly citing ‘peak periods’ without offering sensible alternative dates despite numerous requests, clearly constitutes a ‘deficiency in service’ under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act.’ Furthermore, the decision to allow cancellation but deny a refund was labeled as arbitrary and one-sided. The Commission emphasized that ‘unfair, one-sided contractual clauses that deny refunds in the face of total non-performance cannot override statutory rights.’ It also concluded that Doves Vacation’s initial sales pitch, which enticed enrollment without the genuine capacity or intent to provide timely bookings, perfectly aligned with the definition of ‘unfair trade practice’ under Section 2(47) of the Act.
Consequently, the Commission ruled that Doves Vacation must refund the entire membership fee of ₹1.89 lakhs. In addition, the firm was directed to pay ₹20,000 as compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony caused, along with ₹5,000 to cover the legal costs incurred by the complainant. This ruling serves as a strong reminder that companies must honor their commitments and act fairly towards consumers.