Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi: A commercial suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 8,00,000 along with cost, interest at the rate 8% per annum from date of filing till realization and damages. Hemani Malhotra, J., held that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff is held not entitled to recover any amount whatsoever from the defendant.
The plaintiff, a manufacturer of stainless-steel kitchenware, tableware, and hotel ware since 1970, planned an international holiday to Australia as a reward for its dealers. To facilitate this, the plaintiff contacted Plan My Tours (PMT), who introduced them to the Director of the defendant company. The Director of the defendant company assured the plaintiff that his company organizes international tours for large groups and that Marvs Travels Australia Pvt. Ltd. based in Australia, would handle the tour arrangements.
Pursuant to these assurances, the plaintiff agreed to book a package for a 6-night, 7-day tour to Sydney and Melbourne for 63 persons at a cost of 1245 Australian Dollars per person plus GST. The tour was scheduled for 06-06-2020, to 12-06-2020. The plaintiff made an advance payment of Rs. 8,00,000 to the defendant on 04-12-2019, for booking air tickets. Additionally, the plaintiff applied for visas for all participants, paying approximately Rs. 10,000 per person in VFS fees, totaling Rs. 6,30,000, which was non-refundable. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown, the plaintiff canceled the tour on 25-03-2020. Despite this, the defendant failed to refund the advance payment of Rs. 8,00,000 and ceased responding to the plaintiff’s communications, prompting the plaintiff to file the present suit.
In its written statement, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s claims, asserting that it was not a service provider for travel or tourism. Instead, the defendant claimed to be a BPO/Call Centre/Agent for Marvs Travel Group (MTG), based in Melbourne, Australia. The defendant argued that MTG, and not the defendant, was responsible for organizing the tour and that MTG’s refund policy, which applied only if the tour was canceled 40 days prior, was not applicable to the defendant. The defendant also contended that all communications and agreements were between the plaintiff and MTG through PMT, with no direct dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the defendant claimed that it could not be held liable for the refund as there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant.
In response, the plaintiff reiterated its claims, asserting that the defendant was indeed liable as it had introduced its international counterpart and was responsible for the tour arrangements. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s involvement was evident from the communications and documents exchanged.
The issue under consideration was whether there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 8,00,000/-, whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest, and the relief to be granted.
The plaintiff presented evidence through an Authorized Representative, who reiterated the plaint’s averments and relied on documents including an authority letter, a quotation prepared by the defendant, bank statements, an invitation letter, email exchanges regarding the cancellation, and a legal notice. The defendant’s Director countered this by presenting evidence that included advance deposit receipts, invoices, and GST returns, arguing that the defendant was merely an agent and that the payments were made to MTG Australia, not the defendant.
The Court observed that the plaintiff’s evidence indicated that communications regarding the tour were primarily between PMT and MTG Australia, with no direct evidence linking the defendant to the refund obligations. The emails and documents showed that the defendant acted as an intermediary for MTG Australia, which was responsible for the tour arrangements and financial transactions. The lack of direct communication between the plaintiff and the defendant, coupled with the acknowledgment from MTG Australia regarding the receipt of the advance payment, supported the defendant’s claim of not being liable for the refund.
Thus, the Court determined that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, the defendant was not liable for the refund of Rs. 8,00,000. The plaintiff’s suit was dismissed based on the findings that the defendant was merely an agent and did not have a direct contractual obligation to refund the advance payment.
[K Home Appliances v. Marvs Travel India Pvt Ltd, 2024 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 17, decided on 12-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate Saurabh Sharma, Counsel for plaintiff
Advocate Sahil Mongia, Counsel for defendant