Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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