Delhi District Commission Orders Thomas Cook And Red Apple Travel To Pay 50 Lacs To Man Who Lost His Wife, Son And Father-In-Law In Colombo Accident

Brief Facts:

Yogesh Saigal (“Complainant”), along with his family members, booked a vacation package with Thomas Cook and its subsidiary Red Apple Travel Pvt. Ltd. (“subsidiary”). They chose the package based on the claims of Thomas Cook being the best travel service provider. The package included accommodation, sightseeing, transportation, and insurance.

The complainant alleged that the crucial information about the subsidiary’s involvement in organizing the tour was disclosed only 36 hours before the trip. The family travelled to Colombo, Sri Lanka, on December 22, 2019. On December 23, their vehicle collided with a container truck, resulting in the deaths of the complainant's wife, son, and father-in-law. The complainant and his daughter were severely injured. As a result, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Delhi (“District Commission”) seeking Rs. 8.99 crores as pecuniary damages from Thomas Cook and its subsidiary company for negligence, deficiency in service and misleading advertisement along with Rs. 1 Lakh as litigation costs.

The complainant asserted that Thomas Cook and its subsidiary had been negligent and engaged in unfair trade practices. He contended that their claims of being a top-tier travel service provider influenced his choice to book a vacation package. The last-minute revelation of the subsidiary’s involvement in the tour, just 36 hours before the trip, was highlighted as a deficiency in service.

In response, Thomas Cook and its subsidiary refuted these claims. They maintained that the accident was an unfortunate event beyond their control and denied any negligence or deficiency in their services. They argued that they had enlisted the subsidiary company as their agent, responsible for the tour's practical arrangements, and defended the subsidiary’s track record. The companies asserted that the vehicle involved in the accident was well-maintained, driven by an experienced driver, and that the collision did not automatically imply negligence on their part.

Observations by the Commisssion:

The District Commission examined the circumstances surrounding the accident and found that the photographs from the accident scene, along with the police report, clearly indicated negligent driving by the hired driver. The principle of res ipsa loquitur, a rule of evidence, was applied in this case since the negligence was evident from the facts themselves.

The District Commission further noted that Thomas Cook and its subsidiary, were in a principal-agent relationship. The act of negligence committed by the agent (driver) during the course of providing services falls within the scope of the principal's (i.e., Thomas Cook) responsibility. The Commission cited the judgment in Indian Airlines vs S N Seth F.A. No. 495/1997, where it was established that if a loss is caused due to the negligent act of an agent, the principal is liable for the same.

The District Commission further found that Thomas Cook had failed to provide proper information about the arrangement and services in Sri Lanka, which were actually managed by its subsidiary. This omission amounted to a deficiency in services and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission also mentioned the booking form and terms and conditions signed by the complainant that indicated the awareness of the services being provided by the agent.

The District Commission noted that while the trauma experienced by the complainant couldn't be quantified in monetary terms, a compensation of Rs 50 lakh was appropriate considering the loss and suffering. The District Commission gave Thomas Cook and its subsidiary three months to jointly pay the compensation and warned that failing to do so would result in further liability to pay Rs 10 lakh.

Case: Yogesh Saigal vs Thomas Cook (India) Pvt. Ltd

Case No.: CC/128/2022

Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.

Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.

Click Here To Read/Download Order