The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has clarified that a proforma party - named in a complaint without any relief sought against them - cannot be held liable for refunds, compensation, or litigation costs. The judgment underscores the necessity of judicial application of mind when adjudicating consumer disputes, particularly where the complainant’s grievance lies solely with a travel agent rather than the airline itself.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondents, Dr. Kalyan Chaudhuri and Mrs. Aloknanda Chaudhuri, booked business-class air tickets through East India Leisure and Holidays (Respondent No. 3) for travel from Kolkata to Toronto via Dubai on 11.08.2020/12.08.2020 and return on 20.09.2020/21.09.2020. The tickets (Nos. 1763760284874 and 1763760284875) were issued by Emirates Airlines (the appellant) in favour of Riya Travels and Tours, the intermediary agent. The respondents paid Rs. 6,49,960 for the tickets and Rs. 53,040 as commission to the travel agent.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, international flights were suspended from 22.03.2020 to 27.03.2022, rendering the tickets unusable. On 31.07.2020, Emirates Airlines processed a full refund of Rs. 6,02,132 to Riya Travels and Tours, which subsequently transferred the amount to the travel agent (Respondent No. 3). This refund was confirmed via email dated 30.09.2020.
Key Facts
- 11.03.2020: Respondents booked tickets through Respondent No. 3
- 22.03.2020: International flights suspended due to Covid-19
- 31.07.2020: Emirates Airlines refunded Rs. 6,02,132 to Riya Travels and Tours
- 30.09.2020: Refund confirmation email sent to Respondent No. 3
- 11.10.2020: Respondent No. 3 agreed to adjust refund against future bookings
- 17.08.2022: Respondents sent legal notice to Respondent No. 3 (not the appellant)
- August 2022: Respondents discovered refund had been processed to the travel agent
Procedural History
- 12.12.2022: Complaint filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (CC/604/2022)
- 17.02.2023: Case proceeded ex parte against Respondent No. 3 for non-filing of written version
- 22.04.2024: Appellant filed evidence; respondents refused to file questionnaire
- 17.08.2023: Appellant’s application for deletion as proforma party dismissed as premature
- 11.01.2025: Arguments concluded; order reserved
- 22.01.2025: District Commission directed Emirates Airlines (appellant) and Respondent No. 3 to refund Rs. 6,49,960, pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation, and Rs. 30,000 as litigation costs
- 02.04.2025: Appellant applied for certified copy of judgment
- 22.04.2025: Certified copy furnished
- 16.07.2025: First Appeal (FA/127/2025) filed before State Commission
- 16.06.2026: Appeal heard
- 02.07.2026: Present judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
Appellant (Emirates Airlines):
- Contended that it was impleaded as a proforma party with no relief sought against it
- Argued that the refund was processed to Riya Travels and Tours, which subsequently transferred the amount to Respondent No. 3
- Submitted that the District Commission failed to consider documentary evidence (Annexures R-2/3 and R-2/4) proving refund processing
- Highlighted that the respondents admitted in their complaint (Paragraph 9) that the refund was processed to the booking agent
Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 (Complainants):
- Acknowledged that the appellant was a proforma party with no direct claim against it
- Admitted that Emirates Airlines refunded the amount to Riya Travels, which transferred it to Respondent No. 3
- Argued that the District Commission mechanically passed the order without applying judicial mind
- Contended that the grievance lay solely with Respondent No. 3 for withholding the refund
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the District Commission’s order dated 22.01.2025, arguing that it was erroneously held liable despite being a proforma party. The respondents sought dismissal of the appeal, contending that the District Commission’s order was justified against Respondent No. 3.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a proforma party, against whom no relief is sought in a consumer complaint, can be directed to refund ticket amounts, pay compensation, and bear litigation costs under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- Relied on the definition of a proforma party, arguing that no relief was sought against Emirates Airlines
- Submitted that the refund was processed to Riya Travels and Tours, which confirmed the same via email dated 30.09.2020
- Contended that the District Commission failed to consider documentary evidence (Annexures R-2/3 and R-2/4) proving the refund
- Argued that the respondents admitted in Paragraph 9 of their complaint that the refund was processed to the booking agent
- Highlighted that the District Commission’s observation - that the appellant failed to submit cogent documents - was misconceived
For the Respondents
- Admitted that the appellant was impleaded as a proforma party to track refund status
- Acknowledged that Emirates Airlines refunded the amount to Riya Travels, which transferred it to Respondent No. 3
- Argued that the District Commission mechanically passed the order without applying judicial mind
- Contended that the grievance lay solely with Respondent No. 3 for withholding the refund
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the complaint petition and found that Emirates Airlines was impleaded as a proforma opposite party, with no relief sought against it. The respondents themselves admitted in Paragraph 9 of their complaint that they discovered the refund had been processed to the booking agent (Respondent No. 3) in August 2022. The legal notice dated 17.08.2022 was addressed solely to Respondent No. 3, not the appellant.
The Commission scrutinized the documentary evidence:
- Annexure R-2/3: Email dated 30.09.2020 from Riya Travels confirming refund processing to Respondent No. 3
- Annexure R-2/4: Email correspondence between Emirates Airlines and Respondent No. 3, wherein the latter agreed to adjust the refund against future bookings
The Commission observed that the District Commission erred in recording that the appellant failed to submit cogent documents. The respondents’ answers to the appellant’s questionnaire confirmed that Emirates Airlines was a proforma party and that the refund was processed to Respondent No. 3.
"The fact that the Respondents Nos 1 and 2 had no claim against the Appellant herein is also evident from the statement of the Respondents Nos 1 and 2 (complainants therein) in paragraph 9 of the complaint petition where they stated that being tired with the false assurance of the opposite party, they searched the website of the Emirates Airlines and found a toll free number and after providing their ticket numbers they came to know that in the month of August, 2022, the amount pertaining to the tickets were refunded long back to the booking agent."
The Commission held that the District Commission’s order was mechanically passed without judicial application of mind, as it failed to distinguish between the proforma party (Emirates Airlines) and the primary opposite party (Respondent No. 3).
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed on contest against Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and ex-parte against Respondent No. 3, with no order as to costs. The District Commission’s order dated 22.01.2025 was modified to absolve Emirates Airlines (the proforma party) from any liability. The operative portion of the order was amended to direct only Respondent No. 3 (Eliza Chakraborty, proprietor of East India Leisure and Holidays) to:
- Refund Rs. 6,49,960 to the complainants
- Pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation
- Pay Rs. 30,000 as litigation costs
What This Means For Similar Cases
Proforma Parties Cannot Be Held Liable Without Relief Claim
- Consumer forums must distinguish between proforma parties and primary opposite parties when adjudicating complaints
- No relief can be granted against a proforma party unless explicitly sought in the complaint
- Judicial application of mind is mandatory - mechanical orders without considering the parties’ roles are liable to be set aside
Documentary Evidence Is Crucial in Refund Disputes
- Email correspondences, refund confirmations, and transaction records can decisively prove compliance with contractual obligations
- Failure to consider documentary evidence may lead to erroneous orders, as seen in this case
- Travel agents must transparently process refunds to avoid consumer grievances
Consumer Protection Act Does Not Impose Vicarious Liability
- Airlines cannot be held liable for the actions of travel agents unless they are directly implicated in the deficiency of service
- The burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish deficiency in service against the correct party
- Procedural fairness requires impleading necessary parties - failure to do so may vitiate the complaint
