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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more