Submit your Complaint
mail@consumerredressal.com
 

Submit Complaint

Helpline Number

  +91 70657 60003

Email Address

  mail@consumerredressal.com

Judgments on Air lines

Lufthansa German Airlines vs. Sunil Kothari & Ors dated 2012-11-22
The facts as seen in Revision Petition No.1737 of 2012 have been taken for the purposes of the consideration of these revision petitions. The matter arose out of travel of the Complainant from New Delhi to Tusan (US) for participating the Tusan Fair in February, 2005. The journey, in both sectors, was booked on Lufthansa Flight. Onward journey from New Delhi to Tusan via Munich (Germany) had apparently no problem. But, for the return journey, which was from Tusan to New Delhi via Frankfurt (Germany), the Complainant was not allowed to board the flight, on the ground that he did not have transit visa for Germany. He had to undergo considerable additional expenditure and personal inconvenience and could return to Delhi after a delay of two days. In the consumer complaint filed against Royal Classic Tours and Travel Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Lufthansa German Air Lines, through its Country Manager, New Delhi (OP-2), the Complainant claimed 1488.44 US $ towards cost of the tickets, Rs.4 lacs towards compensation and Rs.21,000/- towards costs. read more +
 

C. Venuprasad & Ors vs. M/s Narangs International Hotel Pvt. Ltd dated 2012-11-09
Failure of proper upkeep and maintenance of the lifts in the Ambassador Hotel, Mumbai, owned and managed by M/s Narangs International Hotel Pvt. Ltd. is at the center of controversy in these two complaints. In OP No. 179 of 1994, complainants no. 1 to 10 were guests of the hotel. Their twofold allegations are that during the stay of complainants no. 1 to 9 in the Ambassador Hotel, on the 28th of February, 1994 there was a breakdown of power supply from 0030 hours till 0645 hours without any alternate arrangement of back up power supply, as a result of which they had to pass through a harrowing time and had to spend a restless night. As if this was not enough, on the same day while travelling in the lift from the lobby to the revolving restaurant on the 12th floor, complainants no. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10 got stuck/trapped midway between the 11th and 12th floor for two and a half hours, which was traumatic and the rescue operation was harrowing. Alleging gross deficiency in service, those who were trapped inside the lift and their relatives who were anxiously waiting outside and watching the sluggish rescue operation have filed OP No. 179 of 1994 seeking compensation of Rs.43,00,000/- from the OP Hotel. read more +
 

M/s Rajasthan Art Emporium vs. Kuwait Airways dated 2012-10-01
M/s Rajasthan Art Emporium filed this complaint before this Commission in September, 1997 against Kuwait Airways and Daga Air Agents. This Commission decided the complaint on 21.5.2003. The complaint was partly allowed. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant approached Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 15.3.2011, was pleased to hold as follows: “We are not persuaded to agree with the submission. Further, the National Commission did not commit any error in granting the amount of US$ 36440 towards the short delivery. The relief so granted by the National Commission is based on appreciation of the material available on record. Be that as it may, the respondent did not prefer any separate appeal challenging the correctness of the order of the National Commission in awarding the said amount towards the short delivery but preferred cross objections which in our considered opinion, are not maintainable. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed setting aside the finding recorded by the National Commission so far as it concerns the issue relating as to whether there was any delay in delivering the consignment. The matter, is accordingly, remitted for fresh consideration by the National Commission. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion, whatsoever, on the question as to whether there was any delay at all in delivering the consignment as the same is required to be gone into by the National Commission.” read more +
 

Arun Sangwan vs. Indian Airlines dated 2012-08-23
The complainant is a Sales Manager with Silicon Graphics, a Multi-National Company. He is an M.B.A. and was drawing salary of Rs.5,00,000/- pack, p.a., besides other perquisites, at the time of filing of this complaint. He has been travelling as per his business requirement. He is an Income Tax Assesse. He was to attend an important Conference of the Company, on 23.02.2001, at 11.00AM, at Mumbai. Therefore, he booked his ticket from the opposite party and the flight was scheduled to depart at 8.00AM, from New Delhi. The complainant arrived at the airport on 23.02.2001 at 6.30AM. At 6.40AM, it was announced that the departure of the flight was delayed but no rescheduled time was announced. At about 7.00AM, the counter opened and the complainant was informed that the flight would be departing at 8.20 AM.The complainant mentioned that he could go by the Jet Airlines Flight at 8.00AM, but he was misled into by the Check-in official that the flight would definitely take off at 8.20AM. At 8.00AM, the Boarding was announced. At about 8.30AM, pilot announced that the flight is further delayed as he was not getting clearance from the Commercial Department. The complainant requested for being off-loaded so that he could take the Jet Airlines Flight at 9.30AM, but he was not permitted to deplane. The pilot was specifically explained about the entire situation by the complainant and requested for transfer back to the airport to meet the officials concerned. read more +
 

M/s Kraftland(India) vs. United Airlines dated 2012-08-07
The facts of the case according to the Appellant (who is engaged in the business of import and export) are that he had booked a consignment with the Respondent/Airlines for Leeds, UK through their forwarding agent M/s Necko Freight Forwarders Ltd. on 14.11.1997 and a copy of the Invoice No.2059/97 dated 08.11.1997 was handed over to the Respondent in which it was clearly indicated that Barclays Bank, Leeds, U.K. are the consignee. Although the destination was stated as Leeds in the Airways Bill, the destination was wrongly typed by the Respondent/Airlines as being London. Although informed about this discrepancy, Respondent did not take steps to change the destination from London to Leeds and due to the negligence and callousness of Respondent/Airlines, the Appellant’s buyer at Leeds refused to take belated delivery of the order and cancelled the same. Appellant thereafter arranged for another buyer for the said consignment at Los Angles and requested the Respondent to forward the consignment to Los Angles for which Appellant was ready to pay the costs. However, vide letter dated 25.11.1997 and 04.12.1997, Respondent/Airlines expressed its inability to transfer the consignment to Los Angles stating that the documents of the concerned consignment have been released to a broker in London. Appellant was shocked to know this because the consignee was Barclays Bank London and therefore, Respondent did not have the authority to release the documents to any other person. To sum-up, in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the Respondent/Airlines, the Appellant was not able to dispose of the consignment either at London or at Los Angles and also lost goodwill of its clients in Leeds, suffering considerable losses on this account which adversely impacted on its business. Since requests made to the Respondent as also to International Airport Transport Authority did not give Appellant any relief, it filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Respondent be directed to pay the Appellant, Rs.2 lakhs towards cost of goods, Rs.5 lakhs towards loss of goodwill and business, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment along with refund of freight charges Rs.17,100/-, thus totalling to Rs.7,67,100/- with interest @ 24% per annum. read more +
 

Harbans Singh vs. Cathey Pacific Airways dated 2012-07-16
The petitioner filed a complaint in question against the respondents alleging that he purchased return air tickets No. 9142369074-1 and 9142369074-6 on 10.10.2003 from respondent no. 2 to travel from Delhi to Hong Kong in flight no. 752L and further in flight no. CX872L from Hong Kong to San Francisco and back via Hong Kong and paid an amount of Rs.54,000/- for the purchase of the tickets. The petitioner arrived at San Francisco on 15.10.2003. During his stay at California, the petitioner received a message from India that his parents are in serious condition and he decided to cut short his stay and asked the Cathay Pacific Airways office at San Francisco to provide him return flight to India at the earliest. According to the petitioner, the airways office at San Francisco confirmed the flight to Hong Kong and further to Delhi on 15.11.2003. However, when the petitioner arrived at San Francisco airport, he was told that there was no seat available in the class for which he held the ticket from Hong Kong to Delhi in connecting flight no. CX753 and hence, the airline did not confirm his seat from Hong Kong to Delhi. In the circumstances, it is alleged that the respondent airline compelled the petitioner to buy another executive class ticket from the airline in case he wanted to travel from Hong Kong to Delhi in connected flight no. CX753. In view of this, the petitioner had to pay extra amount of US$ 609.30 being the amount of difference between fare of the ticket held by him and the executive class ticket by which he had to travel for want of seat in the class mentioned on the ticket. Alleging deficiency on the part of the airlines, the petitioner approached the District Forum for direction for refund of US$ 609.30 or its converted value of Rs.27,509/- along with 18% p.a. from 17.11.2003 and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.read more +
 

Ms. Seema Dhamija vs. Air France Air Line Co. dated 2012-07-12
For causing mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service, OP will pay Rs. 3 lacs to the complainant which also includes the amount spent by the complainant for purchase of the fresh ticket. 2. OP will pay Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of litigation to the complainant as the case continues since November, 2005.” read more +
 

Air India vs. Dr. Mary Ramasamy dated 2012-04-12
Aggrieved by the impugned common order dated 14.09.2011 passed by Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal Nos. 638 of 2011, 316 of 2009 and 132 of 2009, Air India (O.P. No. 3 in the original complaint) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘The Act’). The appeals before the State Commission were filed by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 against the order dated 13.01.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mylapore, Chennai -4 in consumer complaint No. 723 of 2004. By the said order, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainants/Dr. Mary Ramasamy for herself and as mother and natural guardian of her two daughters, Ms. Niranjana Ramasamy and Ms. Krupa Ruth Ramasamy against the Managing Director-Travelon World Wide Pvt. Ltd. (O.P. No.1), Managing Director-Quantas (O.P. No.2) and Managing Director-Indian Airlines (O.P. No.3) alleging deficiency in service on their part, and directed the O.P. No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation to each of the three complainants with the stipulation that the awarded amount shall be paid within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment. read more +
M/s Aggarwal Packers vs. Alok Chaturvedi dated 2011-05-03
The brief facts are that Complainant-respondent who was earlier posted at Kochi was transferred to Chandigarh and had hired the services of petitioner No.1 for transportation of his car as well as other household luggage from Kochi to Chandigarh. The car and luggage were to be carried separately. One of the conditions on which the luggage was booked with petitioner No.1 was that the luggage would not be shifted from one vehicle to another during transit and petitioner had agreed to the said term. read more +
 

M/s Cox and Kings (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Col. S P Putchala dated 2010-08-30
The present revision petition has been filed by M/s Cox and Kings (I) Pvt. Ltd., and Another (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioners’) against the order of the State Commission which had upheld the order of the District Forum granting relief to the Respondents in this case – Col S P Putchala and Another (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent’). The Respondents in this case had filed a complaint in the District Forum against the Petitioners on the grounds of deficiency in service. The relevant facts according to them are as follows: read more +

 

 
© Consumer Redressal 2017. All rights reserved