MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Delhi State Consumer Commission Orders Thomas Cook to Pay ₹1 Crore for Negligence Leading to Fatal Sri Lanka Accident

24 December 2024 12:03 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court enhances District Commission's award, emphasizing accountability and consumer protection in tragic tour mishap.

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC) has delivered a significant judgment against Thomas Cook (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Red Apple Travel, holding them jointly and severally liable for ₹1 crore in compensation. The judgment stems from a tragic incident during a Sri Lanka tour in which multiple family members of the complainant, Yogesh Saigal, lost their lives due to alleged negligence by the travel service providers.

The complainant, Yogesh Saigal, along with his family, had booked a Sri Lanka tour package through Thomas Cook (India) Pvt. Ltd., who subsequently delegated ground handling responsibilities to Red Apple Travel. Just days before the tour, crucial information regarding these arrangements was disclosed, leaving the complainant with no alternative but to proceed. During the tour, a vehicular accident occurred, resulting in the deaths of Saigal's wife, son, and father-in-law, and causing severe injuries to Saigal and his daughter.

The DSCDRC found clear evidence of negligence and deficiency in service by the respondents. The commission applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, indicating that the accident itself provided sufficient evidence of negligence. The court noted, "The photograph of the accident exhibits that the driver of the ill-fated vehicle rammed into another vehicle from behind without any provocation, therefore there was a breach of duty from his side."

The court emphasized the vicarious liability of Thomas Cook for the actions of its agent, Red Apple Travel. It cited precedents, including the Indian Airlines vs. S N Seth case, asserting that principals are liable for the negligent acts of their agents.

The commission underscored the travel service provider's duty of care towards its clients, highlighting that Thomas Cook failed to ensure the safety and reliability of the contractors hired for the tour. The judgment referenced multiple Supreme Court decisions on the standards for awarding compensation, emphasizing the need for consumer forums to ensure justice by imposing sufficient monetary compensation to deter negligent practices.

Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal remarked, "The negligence of the driver causing the accident, following which the complainant lost his wife, his young son, his father-in-law and the complainant and his daughter were badly injured, establishes the liability of the service providers under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur."

This landmark judgment reinforces the accountability of travel service providers in ensuring the safety and proper communication of all tour arrangements. By enhancing the compensation to ₹1 crore, the DSCDRC has sent a strong message about the importance of consumer rights and the severe consequences of negligent service practices. The decision is expected to have a significant impact on future cases, encouraging higher standards of care and transparency in the travel industry.


Date of Decision: 01.07.2024
 

Latest Legal News