Tour organiser liable for mismanagement CONSUMER PROTECTION

Anurag Saxena, his wife, three children and parents had booked a tour with Cox & Kings for ~12.21 lakh. The tour was for 11 days/10 nights and covered several European countries.

When the family landed at London, the designated tour manager was not present. Instead another man was deputed in his place. But this person did not know the details of the tour. He neither had accommodation details, nor the details of the tour. Besides, the vehicle which was arranged did not have a valid pass leading to a three-hour delay at the airport itself. Sightseeing was done by pointing out monuments from the bus without actually visiting them.

Saxena’s family and fellow tourists faced similar problems in Paris, Florence, Venice, Rome and Jungfrau. Due to lack of proper reservations, booking of tour guide, and other reasons, various sightseeing places were omitted. Even food arrangement were not made at several places. And in Florence, the meal led to food poisoning.

On their return, some of the tourists lodged a complaint with Cox & Kings seeking compensation. The tour operator apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered to refund 22 Euros, plus 10 Euros per head for the missing meals, and 10 Euros per head for the Alpine Coaster. The tour operator was also willing to give a gift voucher of ~10,000 for utilising it on another tour within a time-bound period. Refusing to accept this, the Saxena and Mishra families jointly filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund of the entire tour cost, along with compensation of ~11 lakh and litigation costs.

Cox & Kings contested the case, stating that some of the problems had arisen due to unforeseen circumstances for which they were ready to pay compensation, but the demand of the Saxena family was too high. The company said that others on the same tour had not raised any grievance.

The State Commission observed that the evidence showed that the trip had caused sorrow due to various inconveniences. Many sightseeing places were omitted. There was a problem with the meals too. For all these hardships, the tourists were entitled to a suitable compensation. However, since considerable travelling and sightseeing had been covered, the Commission held that it wouldn’t be right to seek a complete refund.

The Commission observed that the refund offered by Cox & Kings was reasonable. In addition, the tourists would be entitled to compensation for harassment. Accordingly, by its order of December 18, 2017 delivered by D R Shirasao for the Bench along with A K Zade, the Maharashtra State Commission held Cox & Kings liable to refund the offered amount of ~29,891. It was further held that kids below ten years would be paid compensation at ~10,000 per head, while the rest would be paid ~25,000 per head. This amount had to be paid within three months, or along with 9 per cent interest, if delayed. Additionally, costs of ~10,000 was also awarded.

The Commission concluded that the tourists didn’t deserve the entire refund. But some compensation had to be paid for the harassment