Family cruise trip cancelled without notice; commission orders Rs 54K payout

NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Kerala has held a holiday company and a cruise operator guilty of deficiency in service after a family reached Kochi for a booked cruise trip only to learn that it had been cancelled without prior notice.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur, directed Plumeria Holidays, its managing director Aneesh Susheel and Nefertiti Sea Cruise to jointly and severally refund Rs 29,500 with interest, pay Rs 15,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, in its order dated October 9, 2026.

dispute

According to the commission order, the complainant, Jayakrishnan P, chief manager at the State Bank of India’s Thiruvananthapuram branch, had paid Rs 29,500 for a prepaid holiday plan offered by Plumeria Holidays.

The plan, called Plumeria Black, included hotel stays, dinner buffets and four Nefertiti cruise trips.The complainant booked a cruise trip for September 6, 2024, and travelled with his family from Thiruvananthapuram to Kochi after taking leave from work. A room at Avenue Regent hotel had also been arranged under the package. However, when the family reached the cruise departure point before the scheduled time, they were informed that the trip had been cancelled.

He alleged that the cruise management behaved rudely towards the family and that he was not informed of the cancellation in advance. He said he repeatedly sought a refund of the booking amount, but the opposite parties did not return it. He approached the commission seeking a refund of Rs 29,500, Rs 50,000 as compensation, Rs 25,000 for leave and travel expenses, and litigation costs.Plumeria Holidays and Aneesh Susheel argued that the cruise had been cancelled because of a technical issue and that they learnt of the cancellation only when the complainant informed them.

They said the cruise ticket charges would be returned to his prepaid card and that he could use the remaining services under the plan.Nefertiti Sea Cruise said the trip had been cancelled because of a delay in the issuance of a mandatory Mercantile Marine Department certificate required to operate the cruise. It claimed that it had informed Plumeria Holidays and Aneesh Susheel about the cancellation, and argued that the ticket terms allowed cancellation due to technical or statutory issues and made the ticket fare non-refundable.

Commission's finding on cruise cancellation

The bench comprising president Ravi Susha and members Moly Kutty Mathew and Sajeesh K P found that all three opposite parties were responsible for the failure to inform the complainant about the cancellation and the resulting inconvenience.The commission noted that the Mercantile Marine Department certificate was issued on September 7, 2024, a day after the scheduled cruise. It observed that the cruise could not operate without the certificate and that the operator knew permission for the scheduled trip could not be obtained.The commission found that Nefertiti Sea Cruise had failed to produce evidence to establish its claim that it had informed the holiday company in advance. It said the cruise operator could have informed either the holiday company or the complainant about the delay in obtaining permission.The commission also held that Plumeria Holidays and Aneesh Susheel could not avoid responsibility by claiming that they learnt of the cancellation only from the complainant.

It noted that the organisers were responsible for obtaining information from the cruise operator and communicating changes to customers.“As the organisers responsible for the trip, OPs 1 and 2 had a duty to obtain the necessary information from OP No. 3 in advance and communicate the same to the customers.”The commission said the non-refund condition in the cruise ticket did not absolve the opposite parties of their responsibility for failing to arrange the trip properly and inform the complainant in advance.“So there is gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 to 3.”It further observed, “Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs1 to 3. So complainant is entitled to get relief from OPs1 to 3.”The commission partly allowed the complaint, holding all three opposite parties liable for the service deficiency.

Final order

The commission, in its October 9, 2026, order, directed the three opposite parties jointly and severally to:

The total amount payable before interest is Rs 54,500. If the opposite parties fail to comply within the specified period, the Rs 29,500 refund and Rs 15,000 compensation will carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of the complaint until realisation. The complainant can also seek execution of the order under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.