Case Study on Consumer Protection Act

Two Case Studies on Consumer Protection Act wrt Tourism industry

1. CASE STUDY ON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT By – Saloni Bansal, M.A in Tourism Administration Submitted to – Prof. Sankar Kumar Mukherjee, TTA740 Global Ethics & Tourism Business

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO CPA 01 REDRESSAL AGENCY 04 OBJECTIVE OF CPA 02 CASE STUDY 1 05 RIGHTS OF CONSUMER 03 CASE STUDY 2 06

3. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 In order to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumer the Consumer Protection Bill, .1986 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 5th December, 1986. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a social welfare legislation which was enacted as a result of widespread consumer protection movement. OBJECTIVES OF CPA The main objective of CPA is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. It is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect the consumers at large from exploitation

4. WHO IS A CONSUMER? Sec. 2 (1) (d) Any person who : • Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or will be paid. • Hires or avails any service for a consideration which has been paid or will be paid. • It does not include a person who obtains goods for resale or any commercial purpose RIGHTS OF CONSUMER Right to Safety Right to Consumer Education Right to be Informed Rights of Consumer Right to Redressal Right to be Heard

5. REDRESSAL AGENCY DISTRICT FORUM -It shall consist of a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge as its President,2 other members, one of whom shall be a woman. -Every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of 5 years or up to the age of 65 years which ever is earlier. -It shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20 Lacs .. STATE COMMISSION -It is established by SG by notification. -It shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs. 20 Lacs but does not exceed Rs.1 Crore and appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State. NATIONAL COMMISSION - It shall consist of a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court, as its President. Not less than 4 and not more than such number of members as may be prescribed and one of whom shall be a woman. -Every member of the National commission shall hold office for a term of 5 years or up to the age of 70 years which ever is earlier. -It shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, the claim exceeds Rs. 1 Crore and appeals against the orders of any State Commission.

6. CASE STUDY 1 05

7. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thomas Cook India Ltd. Vs. Sh. R.K. Jain & Ors. on 12 July, 2013 1 Sh. R.k.Jain S/o Sh. M.R.Jain 2.    Mrs. Sarita Jain W/o Sh. R.K.Jain 3.    Sh.Ankur Jain S/o Sh.R.K.Jain (All r/o D-375, Anand Vihar , Delhi-110092) 4.    Sh. Anil Gupta Travel Agent, Thomas Cook India Ltd. C-33, Ist Floor, Inner Circle Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Respondents CORAM : S.A.Siddiqui - Member (Judicial) S.C.Jain – Member 08.09.2011 directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, metal agony alongwith Rs. 75,000/- for providing deficient services specially on account of not guiding the complainant properly in applying visa in time for Sh. Akash Jain and also awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation charges.

8. the respondent-2 and respondent-3 decided to visit UK along with other places/countries and as they had thought of visiting the foreign countries for the first time and as they were not the frequent flyers, they decided to engage a dependent tour operator and they approached a branch of Thomas Cook India Ltd. at Connaught Place, New Delhi. And there they came in contact with Sh. Rakesh Bawa Branch Manager of the Company.  On assurances given by the appellant, the respondent/complainant booked in one of the tour of the appellant/OP to Europe i.e. European Extravaganza for the duration 13.06.2008 to 27.06.2008 and paid an initial amount of Rs. 45,000/- vide cheque bearing no. 065225 dt . 24.01.2008 in favour of M/s Thomas Cook India Ltd. The appellant/OP assured the respondents/complainants that there would not be any problem in materialising the said schedule/plan. The respondents/complainants completed all the necessary formalities and handed over all the documents/papers etc. The respondents/complainants had stated that they had always gone by the advice of the appellant/OP step by step only for the purpose of their convenience in fulfilling all the necessary requirements for the said trip. 

9. The respondents/complainants further stated in their complaint that inspite of all the assurances the appellant/OP did not apply for the visa of their son in London well in time i.e. until the end of April, 2008 and by that time it has been too late for Sh. Aakash Jain to apply for Schengen Visa . The appellant/OP had booked the tour of the respondent/complainant from 13.06.2008 to 27.06.2008 so that they may be joined by Sh. Aakash Jain in London and can attending convocation ceremony which was scheduled for 28.06.2008 and after that on 29.06.2008 the respondents/complainants alongwith Sh. Aakash Jain had to come India via Dubai on 01.07.2008,  the dates were clashing with Sh. Aakash Jains convocation ceremony which they could not afford to miss at any cost. The respondent/complainant due to re-scheduling of the trip had to miss considerable five days out of 17 days trip and had to spend additional money on staying at Cambridge without any purpose which cost them around 2,000 Pounds. The company will not be responsible for none issuance of visa due to receipt of incomplete/delayed document from the client. It is a possibility that the consulate may ask the passenger to appear for a personal interview. This is at the sole discretion of the consultate /authorities.

10. JUDGEMENT Accordingly the District Forum, New Delhi had rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and we find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the District Forum, New Delhi and the order does not call for any interference. Judgment goes against the appellant themselves because the above discussion clearly shows that the appellant had committed deficiency in service and even provided inadequate and substandard services as were promised, due to which the respondents/complainants had to suffer grave harassment, trauma along with financial loses.

11. CASE STUDY 2 06

12. National Redressal Commission Wg . Cdr. P. S. Sandhu and Ors Vs. Union of India on 15 March, 1998, New Delhi In case of Wg . Crd . P. S. Sandhu and Ors Vs. Union of India, by awarding a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to Wg . Crd Sandhu and Rs. 2 .4 Lakhs each to his two children for the death of Mrs. Sandhu in a boat tragedy. The National Commission made it clear that those who pay scant attention to safety will be held liable for any losses or suffering caused as a consequence of such negligence. In this case, the Court held the Army Authorities who ran the Boat Club at Barapani Lake near Shillong, guilty of negligence for not providing life jackets or any other safety measures.

13. THANK YOU DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?