Skip to main content

Travel Agency to Pay Rs 3 lakh to consumer: Panel

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) upheld the order of the District Consumer Forum which directed an travel agency to pay a compensation of Rs 3.03 lakh to three bakers for ruining their plan to participate in an international conference held in Germany in 2009.

Dismissing the appeals from SOTC, a division of Kuoni Travel India Private Ltd, Chennai, a leading outbound tour operator in the country, the bench comprising its president Justice R. Regupathi, judicial member J. Jayaram and member P. Bakiyavathi held that there was no infirmity in the order.

K.S. Marimuthu and M. Naina Mohamed of Madurai and S. Thamilvannan of Srivilliputtur, all three members of the Tamil Nadu Bakery Federation and Chennai Bakery Association, planned to participate in the International Bakery Fair held in Germany in 2009. They approached SOTC, seeking tickets and paid an advance of Rs 71,000 each to the tour operator for the tour package.

However, their visas to Germany were rejected by the Consulate General, Federal Republic of Germany due to late submission of applications for visas by SOTC. As they were unable to board the flight to Germany, they sought a refund of the advance amount from the agency and filed a petition before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North).

The SOTC submitted that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints. The district forum, in a common order dated March 21, 2013, held that there was a deficiency in the service on the part of SOTC and directed the agency to refund the advance amount of Rs 71,000 with interest of 9 per cent from September 2011.

The Forum also directed the company to pay a compensation of Rs 30,000 to each for causing mental agony and suffering. The SOTC filed the present petition, challenging this order of the district forum.

 Article referred: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140903/nation-crime/article/pay-rs-3-lakh-consumer-panel

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

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