IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT F.A.NO.921/2025 (Against order in CC.NO.163/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Ariyalur)

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 M/s. Yatra Rep. through its Branch Manager No.90, Ganesa Towers, Lower Floor Chennai Nagar, Mylapore- 600 005 Also at:

M/s. Yatra Rep. by Chief Executive Officer No.1101, 11^th Floor, Tower B, M/s. P. Suresh Unitech Cyber park, Sector-39 Counsel for Haryana Appellant / 1^st Opposite party Vs.

1. Late Mr.T. Dinesh Kumar Represented through Legal heir

2. D. Sumathi S/o. Thangadurai Residing at: House No.14, Kacheri Street, Mylapore Chennai – 600 004

3. Minor Krithin Durai S/o. Late J. Dinesh Kumar Rep. by natural guardian /mother D. Sumathi Residing at: House No.14, Kacheri Street, Mylapore Served called absent Chennai – 600 004 1 to 3 Respondents/ Complainants

4. M/s. Bhadra International (India) Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Having registered office at No.42, Rani Jhansi Marg MM Road Central Delhi, New Delhi Served called absent Delhi- India-110 055 3^rd Respondent/ 2^nd Opposite party The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for a certain direction to the opposite parties. The District Commission has allowed the complaint in part as against the 1^st opposite party. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.16.9.2022 in CC.No.163/2022.

This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for Appellant, and upon perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

ORDER

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH , PRESIDENT (Open court)

1. The 1^st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2. The parties shall be referred as per the ranking before the District Commission in the original complaint.

3. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant alongwith his friends planned to visit Mauritius, and had approached the opposite party for travel arrangement by paying a sum of Rs.48,430/-. Since there was no straight flight service for Mauritius, the flight was booked upto St.Denis De La Reunion on 8.10.2016 at 22.25 hours and from there the connecting flight was booked on 9.10.2016 at about 16 hours which would reach Mauritius at 16.45 hrs. When they reach the Chennai airport, it was found that there was no front office for the 1^st opposite party. Therefore, the complainant and their friends were advised to approach the 2^nd opposite party. On seeing the papers available with the complainant and their friends, the 2^nd opposite party informed that they should have obtained visa to reach Sr.Denis De La Reunion. But having made the travel arrangements, the 1^st opposite party ought to have advised the complainant to obtain visa. Since there was no visa, the complainant and his group were not permitted to travel on that day. They have come back home by cancelling the trip. Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.5,71,970/- alongwith interest.

4. The 2^nd opposite party appeared before the District Commission, and filed their written version denying all the allegations raised against them.

5. The 1^st opposite party, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the 1^st Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party, and thus had directed the 1^st opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.71,970/- alongwith interest @9% p.a., and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensat