Skip to main content

SpiceJet to pay Rs 28K for failing to take care of luggage

Budget carrier SpiceJet has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay a compensation of Rs 28,000 to a couple for failing to take care of their luggage, which was damaged and tampered with while in transit.

The South West District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum noted that the luggage was intact when it was checked-in by the complainants at Srinagar Airport, but on reaching Delhi Airport one of the bags was found to be damaged with its lock removed.

"The tampering has been done during transit, when the baggage was in the custody of the opposite party (SpiceJet), which failed to take proper and adequate care of the properties entrusted to them by a consumer and are liable for deficiency in service," a bench presided by Narendra Kumar said.

The forum directed the airline to pay the complainants, Delhi residents R Raja and M Nuthan R Ballal, Rs 20,289 towards items found missing from their luggage and Rs 8,000 as compensation and litigation cost.

The couple had submitted in their complaint that when they boarded the flight from Srinagar, they had checked-in seven pieces of luggage which were locked. When they arrived in Delhi, they found that one of the bags was torn, its lock removed and some of its contents missing.

They had immediately brought the matter to the attention of the airline's representatives and had also given them the list of the articles missing from the bag, however, SpiceJet had refused to compensate them for the loss, they had alleged.

In its defence, SpiceJet had contended that primarily their liability is limited to paying an amount of Rs 3,000 as compensation and secondly the instant case was one of alleged theft of which there is no proof. The forum, however, rejected the contentions of the airline.

Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/spicejet-to-pay-rs-28k-for-failing-to-take-care-of-luggage_866609.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more