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. 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. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

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...

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 ...

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.