Skip to main content

SpiceJet to pay Rs one lakh for unfair trade practice

SpiceJet has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay Rs one lakh to a passenger for not allowing all members of his family to board the plane despite having confirmed tickets and making them travel on two different flights while returning to Delhi from Goa.

The East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum noted that it was "cruelty" on the part of SpiceJet to split the family into two groups especially when they had children with them and held it guilty of unfair trade practice.

The forum noted that since the airline had not opposed the family's contention, that four passengers who arrived after them were allowed to board and then only three members of their group were later accommodated on the plane, it showed that SpiceJet had overbooked their flight.

"Allegation of the complainant has not been specifically denied (by airline)... Entire conduct of respondent (SpiceJet) is such which points only towards one conclusion that the airline had infact overbooked the passengers on its flight.

"This is a clear act of unfair trade practice. It is also contended by complainant that his two minor children were separated on different flights to travel to Delhi which is a cruelty not only to parents but also to children," a bench presided by N A Zaidi said.

The forum also held the airline "guilty of breach of contract" and directed it to pay Rs one lakh as compensation to the complainant Delhi resident Manu Digvijay Singh.

Singh had contended that despite having confirmed tickets and arriving on time at the Goa airport, he and five members of his family were initially denied boarding saying the flight was full even though four passengers who arrived after them were allowed on to the plane.

Later three members of their family were allowed to board the plane, while the remaining had to take an evening flight back to Delhi, he said.

Spice Jet had said it had denied boarding to half of the family as the flight was already full, which contention was rejected by the forum on the ground that no proof was shown by the airline that the plane was overloaded.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-09/india/41237340_1_unfair-trade-practice-spicejet-spice-jet

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil