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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...