Skip to main content

Travel agency cancels ticket on its own, fined Rs 57,000

 Cancelling of an international flight ticket on it own has cost online travel agency Make My Trip India Rs 57,000. The district consumer disputes redressal forum (Chennai north) fined the agency for negligence and deficiency in service.

M Kabilavanan said he had booked return tickets from Chennai to Colombo for his uncle D Kumaravelu and aunt K Vijaykumari. On August 10, 2011 they went to board the flight from Colombo but Kumaravelu was not given a boarding pass. Officials told him the agency had cancelled the ticket. They stayed back in Colombo and booked tickets for the next day, spending an extra 15,000, said Kabilavanan.

The travel agency who apologized for the inconvenience and said it was trying to trace the number through which the cancellation request was made. But the agency neither provided a solution nor compensated him for the extra expenses, said Kabilavanan. He then moved the forum stating the travel agency had committed fraud.

Make My Trip India said the allegations were "misconceived and vexatious". While booking the tickets, the customer had entered into an agreement that any dispute had to be settled at New Delhi and the district forum did not have the jurisdiction to try the case. Denying that its travel agent had cancelled the ticket, it said the booking amount had been refunded.

The bench comprising president R Mohandoss and member T Kalaiyarasi said as the travel agency had its office in Nungambakkam, it was within the ambit of the forum. The agency had failed to provide the phone number which had requested cancellation of the ticket. There was no affidavit of the travel agent stating he had cancelled the ticket only after a request from Kabilavanan.

Concluding there was negligence and deficiency in service, the forum directed the agencyto pay 30,000 as compensation, 15,000 for refund of air fare, 10,000 as the incidental expenses and 2,000 as case cost.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Travel-agency-cancels-ticket-on-its-own-fined-Rs-57000/articleshow/30592172.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more