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

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...

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.

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.