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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more