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

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

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 ...
2 comments
Read more

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.
2 comments
Read more