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

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

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

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more