Complaint Valid If Primary Issue Concerns Service Provider, Regardless If Presence Of Third Parties: Ernakulam District Commission
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held that a complaint against a service provider remains valid even if a related third party is not included as long as the primary issue concerns the service provider's actions. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant filed a complaint under Section 35 of the...
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held that a complaint against a service provider remains valid even if a related third party is not included as long as the primary issue concerns the service provider's actions.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against a tour operator who organized a tour of Egypt and Jordan for 25 people, including the complainant. During the tour, seven members, including the complainant, tested positive for COVID-19 in Jordan and had to cancel the rest of the tour, being placed in quarantine under Jordanian health authorities' supervision. The tour operator charged the complainant an additional Rs. 24,500 for new flight tickets, hotel accommodations, and transportation. When the complainant sought compensation from the insurance company for these expenses and the mental agony suffered, the claim was denied because the insurance policy provided by the tour operator mistakenly covered the wrong period instead of the actual tour dates. The complainant alleged this error was due to the tour operator's negligence and sought Rs. 25,000 for trip cancellation charges, Rs. 24,500 for additional expenses, and Rs. 25,500 for mental agony and stress due to the quarantine.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The tour operator argued that the complaint was baseless, as the real issue was the insurance claim denial by ICICI Lombard, which should have been included in the complaint. They contended that all necessary services were provided, and the insurance policy details were given to the complainant before the journey, not at the airport as claimed. The tour operator also covered additional costs when the complainant tested positive for COVID-19 during the tour. They attributed the insurance claim denial to the insurance company's error and requested the complaint be dismissed with costs.
Observations by the District Commission
The District Commission observed that the complaint was maintainable even without the inclusion of the insurance company, as the primary grievance was against the tour operator, who failed to secure the correct insurance coverage. The Commission found the tour operator negligent and deficient in service for not ensuring proper insurance for the tour, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and others when they tested positive for COVID-19 during the trip. The Commission highlighted the operator's responsibility to fulfil contractual obligations and protect consumer rights by citing relevant case laws such as Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta and Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh. The tour operator was held liable for the financial losses and emotional distress suffered by the complainant, and the Commission directed the tour operator to provide compensation for these hardships.
The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the tour operator to pay Rs. 25,000 to the complainant for trip cancellation, refund Rs. 24,500 for additional transportation costs, and provide Rs. 15,000 as compensation for mental agony, stress, and tension due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Additionally, the tour operator was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.
Case Title: Chandramohanan Kavunkal Vs. Benny's Royal Tours Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 389/2024