NATIONAL: Honeymoon Tragedy: Rs 1.60 Crore Fine on Tourism Firm
Fatal Negligence in Indonesia
In June 2023, Dr. Vibhushnia and Dr. Lokeshwaran, a newlywed medical couple from Chennai, tragically drowned during a honeymoon photoshoot in Indonesia.
The incident occurred on a motorboat arranged by GT Holidays, where the couple was swept away by waves.
The Chennai South District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found the tourism company liable for negligence, leading to their deaths.
Complaint and Legal Action
Thirugnanaselvam, Vibhushnia’s father from Chennirkuppam near Poondamalli, filed a complaint with the Chennai Consumer Commission.
He alleged that prior accidents in the area were ignored, and the guide’s negligence caused the fatal incident.
He sought Rs 1.50 crore for damages and Rs 50 lakh for mental distress suffered due to the loss of his daughter and son-in-law.
Court’s Investigation and Verdict
The Commission’s investigation confirmed that GT Holidays’ service lapses and the guide’s negligence directly contributed to the couple’s deaths.
On July 31, 2025, the court ordered the company to pay Rs 1.50 crore in compensation to the victims’ family and Rs 10 lakh for Thirugnanaselvam’s mental agony.
The ruling underscores the accountability of service providers in ensuring consumer safety.
Broader Implications for Tourism
The verdict highlights the critical need for stringent safety protocols in adventure tourism.
The Commission noted the absence of adequate safety measures during the motorboat activity as a key factor in the tragedy.
This case may prompt increased regulatory scrutiny of tourism operators to prevent similar incidents.
Victim Family’s Pursuit of Justice
Thirugnanaselvam’s legal action reflects growing awareness of consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The substantial compensation awarded aims to address both financial and emotional losses.
The ruling sets a precedent for holding tourism companies accountable for service deficiencies.
GT Holidays’ Accountability
GT Holidays was found liable for failing to ensure safety during a high-risk activity in a known accident-prone area.
The court emphasized that the company’s negligence violated its duty of care to clients.
The company has not issued a public response regarding an appeal or compliance with the verdict.