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

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/

'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...

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...