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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more