Ludhiana: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal commission has penalised a travel company for unfair trade practice after it failed to refund the money charged from a customer as membership.
The customer had requested for the refund of fees after the company didn’t confirm the grant of holiday package to Dubai. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal commission ordered the firm, based in Punjab, to refund Rs.35,000 to the complainant, Aarti Jain of Ludhiana, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to interest at the rate 8% per annum from the date of payment till its actual realization.
The commission further ordered that opposite parties will pay a composite compensation and costs of Rs.10,000 to the complainant. As per the complaint, the complainant is a homemaker and resident of Ludhiana, and the transaction in question occurred at a firm where the complainant was induced to purchase a holiday package. The complainant was offered a holiday membership for Rs70,000 by the representatives of the opposite parties, and believing the same, the complainant paid Rs35,000 on the spot. She was told the remaining amount would be payable in six months.
As per sources, an individual named Rajveer Kaur influenced the complainant to act immediately by promising 20 nights stay (6Nights/7days per year for three years with two bonus nights), but in the email which was sent later, only 18 nighs was mentioned. Thereafter, despite request through Whatsapp messsages for booking a holiday package to Dubai from 18th July 2025, no assistance regarding destination or booking was provided, nor any acknowledgement was received.
Neelam, another employee, also failed to give response for redressing the grievance of the complainant. Refund request was made by the complainant on July 8, 2025, but the same was denied by sending an unprofessional email to the complainant. Later, the opposite parties unlawfully used the complainant’s and her husband’s photographs on their website to depict them as ‘happy customers’ without permission, and after lodging the complaint, the same was taken down.
On 15 July 2025, the complainant was informed that Manisha had left and a new manager had taken over, who also failed to process a refund or provide services. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental tension and harassment due to deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties. The complainant prayed for issuance of direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.35,000 along with compensation of Rs.50,000 for mental agony, harassment and emotional trauma.Upon notice, opposite parties refused to receive the notice and as such, they were proceeded against exparte. The commission, after appreciating the evidence on record, observed that the complainant perused the social sites of opposite parties and came across the reviews about the act and conduct of opposite parties and found that the entire process is a farce and is a device to extort money from the gullible customers like complainant. It observed that so, from the above evidence of complainant, it is evident that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice and rendering of deficient services.
