The complaint said the company also assisted two members of the family to obtain visa.
A major travel company has been directed by a district consumer forum in New Delhi to pay a compensation of over Rs 6.3 lakh to a former Delhi High Court judge for deficiency in service to him and his family during their leisure trip to South Africa.
The forum, headed by its president S K Sarvaria, also asked Thomas Cook (India) Ltd to pay a litigation cost of Rs 60,000 to retired judge Justice Ashok Kumar Srivastava, who had availed of the tour package from the company.
"We hold the company guilty of deficiency in service provided to the complainant and his family in the pleasure foreign tour named 'South Africa Leisure Tour'," the forum said.
It also observed that the family, comprising his wife, daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren had to face inconvenience when they had to stay one-day extra in Nairobi due to the cancellation of flight back to Delhi.
"It was the responsibility of the company through its employees, officers and agents to ensure timely arrival of the complainant and his family at the airport for boarding of the flight to India," the fourm held.
"Complainant and his family had to face inconvenience during their overstay for one day," it added.
According to the complaint, the family booked a tour package to South Africa from December 12, 2014, to December 25, 2014 and paid around Rs 12 lakh which included flight tickets, sightseeing, hotels, guides, driver and tips.
The complaint said the company also assisted two members of the family to obtain visa.
When they reached the airport to catch the return flight from Johannesburg to Nairobi, they were informed that the flight was cancelled and the Kenyan Airways officials told them that the cancellation of the flight was duly conveyed to the tour company.
The family had to overstay at Nairobi for one additional day due to the cancellation of the flight, resulting in trouble for them as two of their visas were supposed to expire on December 25, 2014, it said.
The company, however, contended that the complaint is baseless, misconceived, frivolous and without any cause of action.
It also contended that the revised air tickets were sent through their service provider in South Africa but the family refused to take the tickets.