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

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...