Skip to main content

Consumer Forum directs Gulf Air to pay Rs 20 lakh compensation to flyer

Bahrain’s national carrier Gulf Air has been directed to pay compensation of 20 lakh to an Indian passenger by a District Consumer Forum here after he was denied the boarding pass at the airport here to travel to Qatar in 2008 despite having valid documents and lost his job, reports PTI.

Terming it as a case for “punitive” compensation, New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the Directors of the Airline to compensate for the harassment caused to Hem Kumar who lost his job in Doha as he was not allowed to board the flight on the ground that his visa did not permit him to re-enter the country.

“Opposite Party (Gulf Air), by its imperfect handling of the passengers with valid documents, have caused loss of his job directly and caused unparallel agony and harassment to complainant,” a bench presided by Justice C K Chaturvedi said, while giving Kumar the maximum monetary relief of Rs 20 lakh that a district forum can award.

While awarding the amount of compensation, the forum noted that such an amount cannot adequately compensate the loss of job, as it was just 8-10 months of his salary in Doha where he was employed.

Kumar, who had come to India on August 28, 2008, alleged that on his date of return to Doha on October 17, 2008, the officials of the airlines denied him the boarding pass on the ground that there was no endorsement for re-entry journey on the visa which was printed in Arabic language.

Kumar told the forum that his visa clearly mentioned that he could travel till October 20, 2008 but the officials could not understand the language so he got the English version for their convenience.

The forum, while passing orders in Kumar’s favour, said, “OP (Gulf Air) has failed to explain how its own official failed to read the Arabic language on visa and why he was forced to bring English version.

 Article referred: http://freepressjournal.in/consumer-forum-directs-gulf-air-to-pay-rs-20-lakh-compensation-to-flyer/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more