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

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Board meetings by video-conferencing

In Achintya Kumar Barua vs. Ranjit Barthkur, the NCLAT has held recently that if any director desires to attend board meetings by video conferencing, the company is bound to allow attendance in this manner. In other words, it is not up to the company or at the discretion of the Chairman/Company Secretary whether or not to allow attendance by video conferencing. The right and option is with any director who so desires. NCLAT has held that the words of Section 173(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 are clear on this. There are, of course, some specified resolutions which cannot be considered in a meeting held by video-conference. However, a proviso inserted to Section 173(2) by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, though not yet brought into effect, says that even in respect of these matters, if the required quorum is physically present, other directors can attend and participate by video-conferencing.
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