Skip to main content

Yatra Online fined Rs 50,000 for woman, child's botched Thailand tour

A tour operator promised to show a woman and her daughter the best of Thailand but instead inflicted "mental torture on them in an unknown land" by reneging on an agreement to provide them various services. Two years after their ordeal, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chennai (south) has found the tour operator guilty of the charges and fined it Rs 50,000.

Sujatha Murali of T Nagar submitted to the forum that she had booked a four-day holiday package from May 9, to May 12, 2012 from Yatra Online, Gurgaon for Rs 59,102. Her 10-year-old daughter V M Yashiswini accompanied her on the trip.

The tour operator had as part of the customised package tour promised to provide Murali and her daughter a buffet breakfast when they arrived in Thailand, three-star hotel accommodation for two nights in Pattaya and accommodation for two nights in Bangkok. Not only did the tour operator fail to provide these facilities, it also delayed a payment link, travel voucher and itinerary it was supposed to send them, Murali said.

They could not enjoy the vacation because neither the hotels nor the tour operator could arrange for vegetarian food. As there were no vegetarian eateries nearby, they had to starve, she said, adding that the hotel was in a "remote area", forcing them to give a miss to shopping hubs and tourist spots like Emerald Buddha Temple.

"It was five days of mental torture in an unknown land," Murali said.

She said she made two complaints but the tour operator failed to address the problem. Murali then moved the forum, seeking compensation for deficiency in services.

Denying the charges, Yatra Online said it was only an "agent" that "arranged for foreign travel by coordinating various services from third-party service providers". Hotel resorts and local tour operators had to provide "actual services". The company could not be held responsible for the "acts of omission and commission by third parties", it said.

Yatra Online said it provided Murali with "best possible options" for her budget. It also argued that the consumer disputes redressal forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because, according to the terms of the package, all disputes could only be tried by a competent court in Gurgaon.

A bench of president P Jayapalan, member L Deenadayalan and member K Amala said placing "the burden on third parties was not acceptable as the money had been paid to the tour operator". After the operator received the complaint, it had apologised for the inconvenience and said it would give Murali a credit note of Rs 1,500 for the next international tour she booked with the company.

Stating that the case was within the jurisdiction of the forum because Murali had made the payment for the package tour in the city, the bench directed the operator to pay Murali Rs 50,000 as fine along with Rs 5,000 in case costs.

Article referred:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Firm-fined-Rs-50000-for-woman-childs-botched-Thailand-tour/articleshow/43467111.cms

Comments

  1. Thanks i like your blog very much , i come back most days to find new posts like this!Good effort.I learnt it

    Turnkey Interior Contractors Chennai

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

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

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

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil