A traveler booked a Kenya Safari tour through SOTC/Thomas Cook (Mumbai) by paying an advance of ₹76,000 against a quoted package of ₹3.49 lakh. Soon after, SOTC revoked the agreed dates, proposed alternate dates at higher cost, and later revealed that part of the advance was treated as a “processing fee” which was not disclosed at the time of payment.
When the traveler declined the revised terms, SOTC refused to refund the advance. Despite repeated follow-ups, emails, calls, and even a complaint through the National Consumer Helpline, the refund was not issued. The company maintained that a conditional email from the customer amounted to acceptance, ignoring later communications.
Legal advice suggested the customer could win in consumer court, but the time, cost, and appeals process outweighed the refund value. Outcome: loss of ₹76,000 and a highly frustrating service experience.
Lessons & Advice for Others
- Get everything in writing: Confirm trip dates, package price, inclusions, and refund terms before paying.
- Demand a full breakup: Insist on a cost breakdown and clarity on any “processing fees.”
- Set SLAs upfront: Agree on timelines for visas, tickets, or special requirements before making payment.
- Be cautious with revised offers: If a company revokes an offer, ask for written confirmation before considering alternatives.
- Check reputation: Speak to friends, family, or colleagues about their past experiences with the agency.
- Prefer direct payments: Pay directly to the company, not third-party gateways, to avoid disputes later.
- Amount paid: ₹76,000
- Date: September 2023
- Evidence: Claimed
- Sources: Source
- Actions tried: Consumer court
- Outcome: Lost
- City: Mumbai
- Sector: Ecommerce, Travel
- Trap Type: Undisclosed Processing Fees
- Organization: SOTC
Story
A traveler booked a Kenya Safari tour through SOTC/Thomas Cook (Mumbai) by paying an advance of ₹76,000 against a quoted package of ₹3.49 lakh. Soon after, SOTC revoked the agreed dates, proposed alternate dates at higher cost, and later revealed that part of the advance was treated as a “processing fee” which was not disclosed at the time of payment.
When the traveler declined the revised terms, SOTC refused to refund the advance. Despite repeated follow-ups, emails, calls, and even a complaint through the National Consumer Helpline, the refund was not issued. The company maintained that a conditional email from the customer amounted to acceptance, ignoring later communications.
Legal advice suggested the customer could win in consumer court, but the time, cost, and appeals process outw
Quick Facts
- Date: 20230901
- Amount paid: ₹76000
Actions Tried
- consumer_court