Skip to main content

Airline pay compensation of Rs. 2 Lacs for loosing lawyer's coat & gown

In Sri Dibakar Bhattacharjee vs Air India, the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Air India to pay compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs each to two lawyers who could not appear before the Supreme Court on the date of hearing as the coat and gown and other case files was in the luggage which got misplaced by the Airline.

The Commission said that though the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 has defined the liability of airline under various circumstances, Honble Supreme Court in The Consumer & Citizens Forum v. Karnataka Power Corporation [1994 (1) CPR 130] laid down that the provisions of this Act give the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other laws for the time being in force. In the instant case, the OP Airlines sought to compensate the Complainants in terms of the relevant provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and as amended vide Act 28 of 2009 dated 20-03-2009. However, as discussed hereinabove, given that there was deficiency in service on the part of Appellant Airlines in losing the luggage of the Complainants, which caused them immense harassment, agony, mental tension and loss of professional face apart from monetary loss, in our considered opinion, Complainants are entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Spicejet Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dr. Atanu Ghosh [R.P. No. 1411/2015] and also in M/s Emirates v. Dr. Rakesh Chopra 

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/lawyers-coat-gown-luggage-misplaced-airline-consumer-commission-orders-compensation-lawyers-not-appear-sc-read-order/

Comments

Post a Comment

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/
Post a Comment
Read more

'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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more