A SARAWAKIAN man had booked an overseas holiday package worth RM50,000 through a local travel agency.
But he later requested a full refund after a revised package failed to meet his original plan.
Explaining his decision, he said the original package included flights with a Middle Eastern airline.
“The package’s main attraction was travelling with the airline. That was why I chose it,” he said.
Following the Middle East conflict, the airline suspended operations on the affected route, prompting the agency to switch the flight to a South-East Asian airline.
The man subsequently requested a refund, but alleged that the agency attempted to pressure him into proceeding with the trip despite the substantial changes to the original arrangement.
He later sought assistance from the National Consumer Action Council (MTPN) Sarawak president Lucas Lau.
Lau said the changes significantly altered the value of the service promised and no longer met the customer’s original expectations, leading the complainant to cancel the trip.
He stressed that a lack of transparency and attempts to influence consumer decisions were contrary to consumer rights as outlined in the Consumer Protection Act 1999, particularly the right to accurate information and freedom of choice.
He said although the changes were due to circumstances beyond the agency’s control, such as international conflict, travel agencies remained responsible for ensuring that consumers were not coerced or misled for commercial gain.
“MTPN acts as a mediator to reach a fair resolution between both parties.
“However, if negotiations fail, the matter will be brought before the Consumer Claims Tribunal and referred to the Tourism, Arts and Culture Ministry,” he said.
Lau reminded the public that under the Tourism Industry Act 1992, any agency failing to uphold service standards or found engaging in unethical business practices might face strict action from the authorities.
“Complaints involving consumer exploitation will be taken seriously to ensure consumers’ rights and interests are protected.
“This case should serve as a lesson to all industry players to respect customers’ decisions, particularly when there are significant changes to the original contract involving high costs and service quality,” he added.
