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

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

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

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more