Skip to main content

Travel Agency to Pay Rs 3 lakh to consumer: Panel

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) upheld the order of the District Consumer Forum which directed an travel agency to pay a compensation of Rs 3.03 lakh to three bakers for ruining their plan to participate in an international conference held in Germany in 2009.

Dismissing the appeals from SOTC, a division of Kuoni Travel India Private Ltd, Chennai, a leading outbound tour operator in the country, the bench comprising its president Justice R. Regupathi, judicial member J. Jayaram and member P. Bakiyavathi held that there was no infirmity in the order.

K.S. Marimuthu and M. Naina Mohamed of Madurai and S. Thamilvannan of Srivilliputtur, all three members of the Tamil Nadu Bakery Federation and Chennai Bakery Association, planned to participate in the International Bakery Fair held in Germany in 2009. They approached SOTC, seeking tickets and paid an advance of Rs 71,000 each to the tour operator for the tour package.

However, their visas to Germany were rejected by the Consulate General, Federal Republic of Germany due to late submission of applications for visas by SOTC. As they were unable to board the flight to Germany, they sought a refund of the advance amount from the agency and filed a petition before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North).

The SOTC submitted that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints. The district forum, in a common order dated March 21, 2013, held that there was a deficiency in the service on the part of SOTC and directed the agency to refund the advance amount of Rs 71,000 with interest of 9 per cent from September 2011.

The Forum also directed the company to pay a compensation of Rs 30,000 to each for causing mental agony and suffering. The SOTC filed the present petition, challenging this order of the district forum.

 Article referred: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140903/nation-crime/article/pay-rs-3-lakh-consumer-panel

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more