1 day ago
Punjab Commission Orders Compensation After Bus Fails Passenger
A lawyer booked a bus from Gurdaspur to Chandigarh.
The bus was supposed to arrive early in the morning but did not come.
The operator told him to travel to Mukerian, a different place, to catch the bus later.
Instead, he cancelled the ticket and travelled by car.
He paid extra money for a driver, fuel, tolls, and other costs.
The travel portal said it was only an intermediary and called him a no-show.
The consumer commission disagreed because the operator could not prove that the bus had arrived.
It ordered the bus company and portal to refund the ticket and pay compensation and legal costs.
The commission said booking websites may share responsibility when confirmed travel services fail.
A bus booked from Gurdaspur to Chandigarh on February 20, 2025, failed to arrive at the scheduled boarding point.
The passenger, a practising lawyer, hired a driver and used his car to reach Chandigarh for work.
The Gurdaspur District Consumer Commission ordered the portal and bus operator to refund the Rs 771 fare.
The commission awarded Rs 9,500 compensation and Rs 3,000 in litigation costs.
It held that online travel portals may share responsibility for confirmed-booking failures and non-refunds.
- Who
- A practising lawyer from Gurdaspur, the private bus operator, the online travel booking portal, and the Gurdaspur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- What
- A consumer commission ordered the bus operator and booking portal to refund a Rs 771 ticket and pay Rs 9,500 in compensation plus Rs 3,000 in litigation costs.
- Where
- The scheduled boarding point was Gurdaspur, the alternative boarding point was Mukerian, and the passenger was travelling to Chandigarh.
- When
- The ticket was booked on February 17, 2025, for travel on February 20, 2025; the commission issued its ruling on September 1.
- Why
- The bus failed to arrive at Gurdaspur, the passenger had to arrange alternative transport, and the ticket fare was not refunded.
Passenger and Commission
Travel Portal and Insurer
Responsibility for the failed journey
Passenger and Commission
The passenger argued that the operator failed to provide the booked service and that the portal was responsible for processing the refund. The commission held that both could share liability because the confirmed booking was made through the portal.
Travel Portal and Insurer
The travel portal argued that it was only an online intermediary and that the bus operator was responsible for operating or cancelling the service.
Whether the passenger was a no-show
Passenger and Commission
The passenger said he reached Gurdaspur bus stand before the scheduled departure. The commission relied on his unrebutted testimony and a recorded conversation indicating that the operator acknowledged the transport problem.
Travel Portal and Insurer
The portal claimed that the passenger had failed to appear at the boarding point and therefore treated the ticket as non-refundable.
Coverage for additional expenses
Passenger and Commission
The passenger sought relief after paying for alternative transportation to reach Chandigarh for his professional duties.
Travel Portal and Insurer
The insurance company argued that its policy did not cover bus cancellations or expenses for alternative travel.
Key facts
- Ticket fare
- Rs 771
- Compensation
- Rs 9,500
- Litigation costs
- Rs 3,000
- Scheduled journey
- Gurdaspur to Chandigarh on February 20, 2025, at 5:40 am
- Alternative boarding point
- Mukerian, approximately 35–40 km from the scheduled point
- Alternative travel expense claimed
- Rs 2,500 for hiring a driver, plus about Rs 5,000 for fuel, tolls, and other expenses
- Commission
- Gurdaspur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Quotes
Gurdaspur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
District consumer commission that issued the ruling
“The failure of the bus operator to operate the bus from the scheduled place, coupled with the failure of the travel booking portal to verify the breach and process a refund of the fare (Rs 771), amounts to a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.”
indianexpress.com
“Online travel portals share joint liability with the principal service provider for service failures, sudden disruptions, and non-refund of money, as the consumer transacts directly with the platform.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Travel Portal Ordered Rs 48,775 Over Ghost Hotel Bookings
Consumer Commission Awards Student Rs 73,000 After Missed Flight
Kerala Consumer Commission Orders Tour Operator to Pay Rs 95,000
Punjab Commission Orders Airline to Pay Rs 64,000
Delhi Commission Orders Airline to Pay Passenger Rs 68,000
Himachal Commission Orders HRTC to Pay ₹50,029 Over Fare
Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Law Accountability for Medical Services
Supreme Court Bars NCDRC President From Sitting Alone
BSNL ordered to pay compensation for retired engineer's landline disconnection
Gurugram man wins Rs 26,000 for Rs 30 bag charge
