Skip to main content

JetLite to pay pessenger Rs. 2 lakhs for cancellation

 Low-fare airline JetLite has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation to a flyer, who could not travel from Delhi to Hazaribagh in Jharkhand for a family function because of sudden cancellation of his flight.

New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the airline to compensate for the harassment caused to Vinod Kumar Singhal and his seven family members in February 2007 and pulled it up for citing fog as a reason for cancellation of the flight.

“It appears that opposite party (JetLite) is taking shelter of early morning fog conditions with weather report,” a bench presided by Justice C K Chaturvedi said, while noting that the first reply of the airline did not mention fog as reason for cancellation of flight.

“... It rather states that there was heavy technical snag, which technician failed to record, in short time.  “The fog report does not indicate the timing of fog, situation hourly. But for the snag, the flight would have left earlier, thereby casting doubts on foggy situation,” the forum said.

“In such a case of cancellation of journey, it cannot be said that cancellation was for reasons beyond the control of OP. It is due to reasons of its own staff or maintenance,” the bench also comprising member S R Chaudhary said.  The forum awarded lump sum compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh to Singhal and his family for all the inconvenience and harassment along with litigation expenses of Rs 50,000.

Singhal had approached the forum with a complaint that his flight from Delhi to Hazaribagh on February 17, 2007 was cancelled after he had reached the airport with his family, due to which he had to travel by car and cancel a family function.

The airline, in its reply, had said that it had to be cancelled due to fog conditions.

Article referred: http://www.indiatvnews.com/business/india/latest-news-jetlite-to-pay-rs-lakh-compensation-to-flyer-12668.

Comment:

Now this is a deadly judgment. Does it mean we can sue an airline when they delay for technical snag ? Reading the judgment it appears that technical snag cannot be used as a defense being within their control. But then the airlines will die as they have or claim to have technical snag all the time. Will be watching this matter as it might go for appeal. One good thing about these law suits though, these habitual delinquents will act more carefully. 

Comments

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...