Case Overview
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against a tour operator who organized a tour to Egypt and Jordan for 25 people, including the complainant. During the tour, seven participants, including the complainant, tested positive for COVID-19 in Jordan, resulting in the cancellation of the remaining tour and mandatory quarantine under local health authorities. The tour operator charged the complainant an extra Rs. 24,500 for new flight tickets, hotel stays, and transportation. When the complainant attempted to claim compensation from the insurance company for these additional expenses and the mental distress experienced, the claim was rejected. The rejection occurred because the insurance policy provided by the tour operator mistakenly covered a different period than the actual tour dates. The complainant attributed this error to the tour operator’s negligence and sought compensation: Rs. 25,000 for trip cancellation, Rs. 24,500 for additional expenses, and Rs. 25,500 for mental agony and stress caused by the quarantine.
Opposite Party’s Arguments
The tour operator contended that the complaint was unfounded, arguing that the core issue was the denial of the insurance claim by ICICI Lombard, which should have been included in the complaint. They claimed that all necessary services were provided and that the insurance policy details were given to the complainant before the tour, contrary to the complainant’s assertion that it was provided only at the airport. The tour operator also covered additional costs incurred due to the complainant’s COVID-19 diagnosis during the trip and attributed the insurance claim denial to the insurance company’s error. They requested dismissal of the complaint with costs.
District Commission’s Observations
The District Commission found the complaint valid even without the inclusion of the insurance company, as the primary issue was the tour operator’s failure to secure appropriate insurance coverage. The Commission identified the tour operator as negligent for not ensuring proper insurance, which led to financial loss and mental distress for the complainant and others affected by COVID-19 during the trip. Citing relevant case laws such as Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta and Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, the Commission emphasized the operator’s responsibility to meet contractual obligations and protect consumer rights. The tour operator was held accountable for the complainant’s financial losses and emotional distress.
Decision
The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the tour operator to pay Rs. 25,000 for trip cancellation, refund Rs. 24,500 for additional transportation expenses, and provide Rs. 15,000 as compensation for mental agony and stress due to the deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices. Additionally, the tour operator was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa