Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

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
 

Similar News