Skip to main content

NCDRC Asks Air India to Pay Rs 1.7L to Woman for missed connecting flight

The apex consumer commission has asked national carrier Air India to pay Rs 1.7 lakh to a woman, who was not allowed to board a London-Delhi flight, saying it cannot afford to "harass" its passengers.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, presided by Justice J M Malik, directed the airline to pay the money to Delhi resident Geetika Sachdeva, who was made to buy fresh tickets after borrowing money, noting that she was made to "pay through the nose".

"Air India cannot afford to harass and cause anger, anguish, frustration, sadness to its customers like this," it said.

The apex commission passed the order while dismissing Air India's appeal against the order of state commission, with a cost of Rs 25,000 saying the "incident highlights arrogance, highhandedness and despotic attitude of the opposite party (Air India)".

The carrier was asked to pay Rs 1,45,000 to the woman towards ticket price and compensation and Rs 25,000 as cost.

It added that it was "difficult to fathom, why should a helpless lady/consumer take a dallop of injustice when someone else is more powerful".

"Instead of admitting that they have committed a mistake, the opposite party (OP) has wasted the precious time of the parties and for more than a decade in pursuing this hopeless case. The case of the complainant stands proved," it said, noting that Sachdeva was "dragged into litigation for about one-and-a-half decade."

The apex commission also denied Air India's contention that Sachdeva suffered because of the deeds of Air Canada, saying "there is always an arrangement between Air India and Air Canada for such like flights" and "if any omission or commission was committed by Canada Airlines, Air India could claim compensation from Air Canada".

Sachdeva, in her complaint before district consumer forum, had said that she had purchased an open air ticket from Air India through its agent for Delhi-London-Toronto-London-Delhi and she was given a confirmed status.

On November 2, 2001, she informed Air India that she would travel from London to Delhi on December 7, 2001 and in turn she was told that her ticket was confirmed for that day.

Later while returning, she was denied boarding at London for Delhi on the pretext of expiry of her ticket's validity, she said, adding that she was forced to borrow money from another passenger for buying another ticket for Delhi.

She had filed a complaint before the district consumer forum which directed the airline to pay Rs 1,45,000 to her including ticket price and compensation. The state consumer commission further upheld the forum's order after dismissing the appeal filed by the airline.

The airline, however, had denied deficiency on its part.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/NCDRC-Asks-Air-India-to-Pay-Rs-1.7L-to-Woman-Says-Cant-Harass-Flyer/2015/03/30/article2738363.ece1

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

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