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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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