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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more