Skip to main content

Consumer Forum directs Gulf Air to pay Rs 20 lakh compensation to flyer

Bahrain’s national carrier Gulf Air has been directed to pay compensation of 20 lakh to an Indian passenger by a District Consumer Forum here after he was denied the boarding pass at the airport here to travel to Qatar in 2008 despite having valid documents and lost his job, reports PTI.

Terming it as a case for “punitive” compensation, New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the Directors of the Airline to compensate for the harassment caused to Hem Kumar who lost his job in Doha as he was not allowed to board the flight on the ground that his visa did not permit him to re-enter the country.

“Opposite Party (Gulf Air), by its imperfect handling of the passengers with valid documents, have caused loss of his job directly and caused unparallel agony and harassment to complainant,” a bench presided by Justice C K Chaturvedi said, while giving Kumar the maximum monetary relief of Rs 20 lakh that a district forum can award.

While awarding the amount of compensation, the forum noted that such an amount cannot adequately compensate the loss of job, as it was just 8-10 months of his salary in Doha where he was employed.

Kumar, who had come to India on August 28, 2008, alleged that on his date of return to Doha on October 17, 2008, the officials of the airlines denied him the boarding pass on the ground that there was no endorsement for re-entry journey on the visa which was printed in Arabic language.

Kumar told the forum that his visa clearly mentioned that he could travel till October 20, 2008 but the officials could not understand the language so he got the English version for their convenience.

The forum, while passing orders in Kumar’s favour, said, “OP (Gulf Air) has failed to explain how its own official failed to read the Arabic language on visa and why he was forced to bring English version.

 Article referred: http://freepressjournal.in/consumer-forum-directs-gulf-air-to-pay-rs-20-lakh-compensation-to-flyer/

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more