Skip to main content

Yatra Online fined Rs 50,000 for woman, child's botched Thailand tour

A tour operator promised to show a woman and her daughter the best of Thailand but instead inflicted "mental torture on them in an unknown land" by reneging on an agreement to provide them various services. Two years after their ordeal, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chennai (south) has found the tour operator guilty of the charges and fined it Rs 50,000.

Sujatha Murali of T Nagar submitted to the forum that she had booked a four-day holiday package from May 9, to May 12, 2012 from Yatra Online, Gurgaon for Rs 59,102. Her 10-year-old daughter V M Yashiswini accompanied her on the trip.

The tour operator had as part of the customised package tour promised to provide Murali and her daughter a buffet breakfast when they arrived in Thailand, three-star hotel accommodation for two nights in Pattaya and accommodation for two nights in Bangkok. Not only did the tour operator fail to provide these facilities, it also delayed a payment link, travel voucher and itinerary it was supposed to send them, Murali said.

They could not enjoy the vacation because neither the hotels nor the tour operator could arrange for vegetarian food. As there were no vegetarian eateries nearby, they had to starve, she said, adding that the hotel was in a "remote area", forcing them to give a miss to shopping hubs and tourist spots like Emerald Buddha Temple.

"It was five days of mental torture in an unknown land," Murali said.

She said she made two complaints but the tour operator failed to address the problem. Murali then moved the forum, seeking compensation for deficiency in services.

Denying the charges, Yatra Online said it was only an "agent" that "arranged for foreign travel by coordinating various services from third-party service providers". Hotel resorts and local tour operators had to provide "actual services". The company could not be held responsible for the "acts of omission and commission by third parties", it said.

Yatra Online said it provided Murali with "best possible options" for her budget. It also argued that the consumer disputes redressal forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because, according to the terms of the package, all disputes could only be tried by a competent court in Gurgaon.

A bench of president P Jayapalan, member L Deenadayalan and member K Amala said placing "the burden on third parties was not acceptable as the money had been paid to the tour operator". After the operator received the complaint, it had apologised for the inconvenience and said it would give Murali a credit note of Rs 1,500 for the next international tour she booked with the company.

Stating that the case was within the jurisdiction of the forum because Murali had made the payment for the package tour in the city, the bench directed the operator to pay Murali Rs 50,000 as fine along with Rs 5,000 in case costs.

 Article referred:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Firm-fined-Rs-50000-for-woman-childs-botched-Thailand-tour/articleshow/43467111.cms

Comments

  1. Unknown28 June 2016 at 15:58

    Thanks i like your blog very much , i come back most days to find new posts like this!Good effort.I learnt it

    Turnkey Interior Contractors Chennai

    ReplyDelete
  2. ESLAM UWK15 June 2022 at 14:52

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

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