Court orders reimbursement for senior couple snubbed by Tour Co | Bombay News

Mumbai: The Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Dispute Resolution Supplementary Commission found Veena Patil Hospitality, a tour and travel agency, guilty of service deficiency and ordered it to reimburse Rs 3.34 lakh, as well as 8% interest, to an elderly couple whose reservation the company had canceled. The couple had refused to pay an additional 55,000 rupees airfare, which the travel agency demanded, for booking tickets on other airlines after tickets originally booked on Jet Airways were canceled when the airline has closed.
Along with reimbursement and interest, the commission also ordered the company to pay 50,000 rupees as compensation to the couple for their mental and physical agony.
Elderly couple Shirish Shetye and his wife Sandhya had booked a trip to England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales in September 2018 and paid a sum of Rs 3.34 lakh.
The tour was scheduled to start at the end of May 2019 and the package included airfare, visa fees, insurance, hotel, sightseeing, catering and the services of a tour operator. However, in March 2019, the travel company advised that Jet Airways tickets to Manchester had been cancelled. The following month, the firm demanded an additional Rs 55,650 for booking tickets on another airline. However, when the Shetyes refused to pay, the company canceled their booking.
Veena Hospitality claimed that the complaint was false and said it was ready to return 25% of the amount.
The commission took note of the complainant’s assertion that there was no increase in taxes, fuel charges, visa charges, etc., but the travel agency charged Rs 26,500 each to the plaintiffs, only because Jet Airways had closed its operations and the company had to book a flight. tickets from other airlines at an additional cost. The commission also pointed out that the name of Jet Airways was not mentioned in the list of airlines that the firm used for circuits abroad. Therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that they were not responsible for paying the increased cost of airfares.
The commission said the cancellation of the couple’s booking was unilateral and the request for extra money for the tickets was arbitrary. Even under the booking terms and conditions, the company had to return a certain amount to the complainants, which they failed to do, the consumer commission said.

Comments are closed.