Hyderabad District Commission Holds Thomas Cook Liable For Failure To Refund Booking Amount Despite Medical Emergency Of Traveller

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Thomas Cook liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for refusal to refund the tour package amount, despite the Complainant's medical emergency. Brief Facts: V.R. Venkatesh and S. Geetha (“Complainants”) planned a trip to Bhutan. They engaged with Thomas Cook (India) Limited, an online travel agent known for international package holidays. Thomas Cook quoted a package encompassing hotels, sightseeing, meals, etc., totalling Rs. 1,00,000/- for two persons. In agreement, the Complainants paid the total tour package amounts, and Thomas Cook issued a tour confirmation voucher. The Complainants also booked flight tickets with Indigo Airlines for travel from Hyderabad to Bagdogra, Bhutan, departing on 05-04-2023, and returning on 12-04-2023. However, on 03-04-2023, one of the Complainants fell ill and was diagnosed with an Urinary Tract Infection, as confirmed by medical reports from Vijaya Diagnostic Centre. Doctors advised against travel for the next 10 days, compelling the Complainants to cancel their tour. They promptly informed both Indigo and Thomas Cook, enclosing medical reports, and sought refunds for the airfare and the tour package. While Indigo refunded their airfare due to the medical emergency, Thomas Cook declined to refund the tour package amount, citing their cancellation policy. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Thomas Cook. In response, Thomas Cook asserted that the complaint was neither legally maintainable nor factual, challenging its validity from the outset. It claimed to have acted in good faith and with due diligence, maintaining that they lacked control over third-party vendors' policies and terms. It argued that the Complainants willingly breached T&C, and the complaint should be dismissed with costs. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that the Complainants' decision to cancel the tour was compelled by an unforeseen medical emergency. This medical condition rendered them unfit to travel, justifying the cancellation of the tour. While Thomas Cook's cancellation policy did stipulate provisions for cancellation charges, the District Commission noted that the policy also included exceptions for health-related cancellations. It held that the clause, though explicitly mentioning COVID-19-positive cases, could reasonably be interpreted to encompass any significant health issue that hinders travel plans. Furthermore, the offer of a 75% refund made by Thomas Cook after the complaint was filed did not absolve them. Therefore, the District Commission held Thomas Cook liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for refusal to refund the tour package amount, despite the Complainant's medical emergency, and the failure to address adherence to the cancellation policy's provisions. As a result, the District Commission directed Thomas Cook to refund 75% of the Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by the Complainant, i.e., Rs. 75,000/- or issue a credit note for the same amount in favour of the complainants for future use, as per the cancellation policy. It acknowledged that Thomas Cook responded only after the filing of the complaint, and directed Thomas Cook to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and legal expenses amounting to Rs. 5,000/-, incurred by the Complainants.Case Title: Ramakrishnan Venkatesh Vadakanjery and Anr. vs Thomas Cook (India) Limited and Anr. Case Number: C.C. No. 266/2023 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Hyderabad District Commission Holds Thomas Cook Liable For Failure To Refund Booking Amount Despite Medical Emergency Of Traveller

Smita Singh

Tags