Skip to main content

NCDRC Asks Air India to Pay Rs 1.7L to Woman for missed connecting flight

The apex consumer commission has asked national carrier Air India to pay Rs 1.7 lakh to a woman, who was not allowed to board a London-Delhi flight, saying it cannot afford to "harass" its passengers.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, presided by Justice J M Malik, directed the airline to pay the money to Delhi resident Geetika Sachdeva, who was made to buy fresh tickets after borrowing money, noting that she was made to "pay through the nose".

"Air India cannot afford to harass and cause anger, anguish, frustration, sadness to its customers like this," it said.

The apex commission passed the order while dismissing Air India's appeal against the order of state commission, with a cost of Rs 25,000 saying the "incident highlights arrogance, highhandedness and despotic attitude of the opposite party (Air India)".

The carrier was asked to pay Rs 1,45,000 to the woman towards ticket price and compensation and Rs 25,000 as cost.

It added that it was "difficult to fathom, why should a helpless lady/consumer take a dallop of injustice when someone else is more powerful".

"Instead of admitting that they have committed a mistake, the opposite party (OP) has wasted the precious time of the parties and for more than a decade in pursuing this hopeless case. The case of the complainant stands proved," it said, noting that Sachdeva was "dragged into litigation for about one-and-a-half decade."

The apex commission also denied Air India's contention that Sachdeva suffered because of the deeds of Air Canada, saying "there is always an arrangement between Air India and Air Canada for such like flights" and "if any omission or commission was committed by Canada Airlines, Air India could claim compensation from Air Canada".

Sachdeva, in her complaint before district consumer forum, had said that she had purchased an open air ticket from Air India through its agent for Delhi-London-Toronto-London-Delhi and she was given a confirmed status.

On November 2, 2001, she informed Air India that she would travel from London to Delhi on December 7, 2001 and in turn she was told that her ticket was confirmed for that day.

Later while returning, she was denied boarding at London for Delhi on the pretext of expiry of her ticket's validity, she said, adding that she was forced to borrow money from another passenger for buying another ticket for Delhi.

She had filed a complaint before the district consumer forum which directed the airline to pay Rs 1,45,000 to her including ticket price and compensation. The state consumer commission further upheld the forum's order after dismissing the appeal filed by the airline.

The airline, however, had denied deficiency on its part.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/NCDRC-Asks-Air-India-to-Pay-Rs-1.7L-to-Woman-Says-Cant-Harass-Flyer/2015/03/30/article2738363.ece1

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...