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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more