Skip to main content

SpiceJet to pay Rs one lakh for unfair trade practice

SpiceJet has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay Rs one lakh to a passenger for not allowing all members of his family to board the plane despite having confirmed tickets and making them travel on two different flights while returning to Delhi from Goa.

The East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum noted that it was "cruelty" on the part of SpiceJet to split the family into two groups especially when they had children with them and held it guilty of unfair trade practice.

The forum noted that since the airline had not opposed the family's contention, that four passengers who arrived after them were allowed to board and then only three members of their group were later accommodated on the plane, it showed that SpiceJet had overbooked their flight.

"Allegation of the complainant has not been specifically denied (by airline)... Entire conduct of respondent (SpiceJet) is such which points only towards one conclusion that the airline had infact overbooked the passengers on its flight.

"This is a clear act of unfair trade practice. It is also contended by complainant that his two minor children were separated on different flights to travel to Delhi which is a cruelty not only to parents but also to children," a bench presided by N A Zaidi said.

The forum also held the airline "guilty of breach of contract" and directed it to pay Rs one lakh as compensation to the complainant Delhi resident Manu Digvijay Singh.

Singh had contended that despite having confirmed tickets and arriving on time at the Goa airport, he and five members of his family were initially denied boarding saying the flight was full even though four passengers who arrived after them were allowed on to the plane.

Later three members of their family were allowed to board the plane, while the remaining had to take an evening flight back to Delhi, he said.

Spice Jet had said it had denied boarding to half of the family as the flight was already full, which contention was rejected by the forum on the ground that no proof was shown by the airline that the plane was overloaded.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-09/india/41237340_1_unfair-trade-practice-spicejet-spice-jet

Comments

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...

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.

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.