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

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