Archive · 22 Sep 2026
Travel Portal Ordered Rs 48,775 Over Ghost Hotel Bookings
A family booked two hotels online for a trip to Srinagar and Gulmarg.
They paid for both rooms before travelling.
When they arrived, neither listed hotel was available as promised.
In Gulmarg, the family found no hotel and spent the night in their car in heavy snow and freezing weather.
Their prepaid Gondola tickets also became unusable.
The travel portal said it was only an intermediary and called the booking a no-show.
The consumer commission disagreed because the portal had taken payment and issued confirmed booking vouchers.
It said a person cannot check in to a hotel that does not exist.
The commission ordered the portal to pay the family Rs 48,775.
A Punjab District Consumer Commission ordered an online travel portal to pay Rs 48,775 to a family after two booked properties were found non-existent.
The family paid Rs 5,788 for Srinagar accommodation and Rs 12,987 for a Gulmarg booking.
After finding no hotel in Gulmarg, the family spent the night in its vehicle during heavy snowfall and temperatures of about -4°C.
The commission rejected the portal’s claim that the family had simply failed to check in, calling the “no-show” defence contradictory and an afterthought.
The award includes Rs 18,775 in refunds, Rs 25,000 for physical harassment and mental agony, and Rs 5,000 in litigation costs.
- Who
- A Punjab-based advocate, his wife, and their two adult children; the online travel portal was the opposing party.
- What
- The Punjab District Consumer Commission ordered the portal to provide refunds and compensation after two confirmed accommodation bookings were not available and the listed properties were found non-existent.
- When
- The family travelled on December 27-29, 2025; the commission issued its order on September 17, 2026.
- Where
- The bookings were in Srinagar and Gulmarg, and the complaint was heard by a Punjab District Consumer Commission.
- Why
- The commission found that listing non-existent properties, failing to provide accommodation or effective assistance, and relying on a no-show explanation amounted to deficient service and unfair trade practices.
Consumer Commission and Complainant
Travel Booking Portal
Responsibility for confirmed bookings
Consumer Commission and Complainant
The complainant and commission said the portal was responsible because it collected payment, issued confirmed vouchers, promised verified accommodation, and failed to arrange assistance or re-accommodation.
Travel Booking Portal
The portal argued that it acted only as an intermediary that forwarded booking requests to hotels and other hospitality providers through its website and application.
Explanation for unavailable accommodation
Consumer Commission and Complainant
The complainant said both properties were non-existent or unavailable, leaving the family without the booked rooms and forcing them to make alternative arrangements.
Travel Booking Portal
The portal said the hotels reported that the complainant had never approached them and had therefore marked the bookings as no-shows.
Need to include the hotels in the case
Consumer Commission and Complainant
The commission held the portal liable even though the hotels had not been made parties, finding that listing non-existent verified properties constituted unfair trade practice and failing to provide the bookings constituted deficient service.
Travel Booking Portal
The portal argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the service-provider hotels had not been impleaded as parties.
- Total award
- Rs 48,775
- Refund ordered
- Rs 18,775
- Compensation
- Rs 25,000 for physical harassment and mental agony
- Litigation costs
- Rs 5,000
- Srinagar booking
- Rs 5,788 for a Family Room at Hotel Heritage Rose Inn
- Gulmarg booking
- Rs 12,987 for Hotel Apple Tree Resorts
- Reported temperature
- About -4°C during the family’s night in its vehicle
