The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a private airline to refund a passenger the USD 500 (Rs 31,441) that he had paid to reschedule his return journey to Chicago from India, holding that the alleged failure to refund the admitted amount amounted to a deficiency in service.A bench of president Pawanjit Singh and member Mohan Sharma also awarded Rs 10,000 for mental agony and litigation expenses.“The admitted liability of the opposite party to refund the said amount cannot be defeated merely because the complainant has failed to prove the allegation of cancellation. The failure to refund the admitted amount, despite the opposite party’s own assurance, amounts to deficiency in service to that limited extent,” the commission said on September 23.It observed that the complainant was put to inconvenience and had to approach the commission to recover an amount that the airline itself had admitted was refundable. It, hence, found him entitled to reasonable compensation and litigation expenses.Airline ‘cancels’ ticket without noticeThe complainant booked round-trip air tickets with the private airline for travel from Chicago to New Delhi and back for a total consideration of USD 680, and the tickets were duly issued by the airline.The complainant travelled from Chicago on February 3, 2022, and reached India on February 4, 2022, with his return journey originally scheduled for February 28, 2022. According to the complainant, however, due to the prevailing COVID-19 situation and his health condition, he approached the airline at Chandigarh for rescheduling, pursuant to which his return journey was changed to June 6, 2022, vide receipt dated April 25, 2022.He claimed that, as he had not fully recovered, he again approached the airline for rescheduling, where the return date was changed to June 19, 2022, upon payment of an additional USD 500 (Rs 31,440).Story continues below this adAgain, due to unavoidable family circumstances and his responsibility towards his elderly parents in Chandigarh, the complainant claimed that he requested the airline for a further change in the travel date, but the staff allegedly failed to provide proper assistance and, without any prior intimation or instruction from the complainant, they unilaterally cancelled his return ticket.He alleged that only upon checking his PNR status, the complainant discovered the cancellation and approached the opposite party’s Chandigarh office, but his grievance was not redressed, despite his having paid the original ticket consideration as well as the additional rescheduling charges.Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant sought refund and compensation for causing financial loss, mental agony and harassment.Came a day before scheduled journey: AirlineThe airline argued that the complainant approached the opposite party for rescheduling of his return journey on repeated occasions and, despite the financial and operational loss caused to the airline by last-minute changes, his ticket was accommodated and rescheduled on each occasion.Story continues below this adIt was stated that the amount of USD 500 (Rs 31,440) charged for the subsequent change was not commensurate with the loss incurred by the airline and, in any event, the said amount was being processed for refund to the original mode of payment, without deduction.Denying that it cancelled the complainant’s ticket or that its staff misbehaved with him, the airline contended that the complainant approached the Chandigarh office on June 18, 2022, i.e., one day before the scheduled journey dated June 19, 2022, seeking cancellation/change at the last moment, which could not be accommodated.Refund delay amounted to deficiency: OrderThe commission held that the complainant failed to produce documentary evidence to establish that the airline had unilaterally cancelled his return ticket. In contrast, the airline produced the ticket status showing “open for use”. Therefore, the allegation of cancellation was not proved.However, the commission noted that the airline had itself admitted that the USD 500 (Rs 31,440) paid for the subsequent rescheduling was refundable, but failed to produce any material showing that the amount had actually been refunded.Story continues below this adIt held that failure to refund the admitted amount, despite the airline’s own assurance, amounted to deficiency in service to that limited extent.TakeawayThe ruling underscored that consumers must substantiate allegations of wrongful cancellation, while airlines remain accountable for admitted refunds. It also clarifies that failure to return an acknowledged refundable amount can constitute deficiency in service, warranting interest and compensation.Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Chandigarh: 0172-2700 183) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Don’t miss out on these stories:Insurer rejects accident claim over ‘alcohol intake history’, widow secures Rs 60 lakhStory continues below this adDrain near senior citizen’s home remains clogged despite complaints, he wins Rs 15,000Woman goes under knife for ‘pointed’ nose, left with ‘crooked’ one, wins Rs 65,000 payout