Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)
Indigo Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. & Anr. vs Mr.Manish Nagpal on 8 April, 2016 cites

Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd vs Chand Mal Baradia And Others on 29 March, 2005

7. Shri Ankit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has argued that the District Forum, Raipur (C.G.) has exceeded its territorial jurisdiction in view of specific clause 18 of the Terms and Conditions of Carriage. He further argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is erroneous and the District Forum has wrongly fastened liability on loss of baggage of the respondent on the appellants (OPs). The respondent (complainant) is only entitled to get Rs.200/- per kg and maximum Rs.3,000/- in respect of loss of baggage from the appellants (OPs). The appellants (OPs) are ready to pay the said amount to the respondent (complainant), but the respondent (complainant) is not willing to receive the said amount form the appellants (OPs). Learned District Form has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.47,673/- (Rs.42,673/- + Rs.5,000/-) - and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the respondent (complainant) which are highly exorbitant. The respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellants (OPs), therefore, the appeal of the appellants (OPs) be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. He placed reliance on A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, 1989 AIR 1239, //11 // 1989 SCR (2) 1; Appeal (Civil) 7653 of 2004 - Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chand Mal Bardia and others decided by Supreme Court on 29.03.2005; Civil Appeal No.4925 of 2011 - InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand, decided by Supreme Court of India on 04.07.2011; Appeal Case No.153/2010 - Mr. Rajeev Mehta Vs. The C.E.O. Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another, decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh on 28.04.2011; Revision Petition No. 28 of 2008 - Shiv Garg Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors. decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 24.04.2012; and First Appeal No.A/12/250 - Adil Irshad Saiyed Vs. Jetlite India Ltd. decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra on 14.08.2012.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 50 - G P Mathur - Full Document

M/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011

7. Shri Ankit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has argued that the District Forum, Raipur (C.G.) has exceeded its territorial jurisdiction in view of specific clause 18 of the Terms and Conditions of Carriage. He further argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is erroneous and the District Forum has wrongly fastened liability on loss of baggage of the respondent on the appellants (OPs). The respondent (complainant) is only entitled to get Rs.200/- per kg and maximum Rs.3,000/- in respect of loss of baggage from the appellants (OPs). The appellants (OPs) are ready to pay the said amount to the respondent (complainant), but the respondent (complainant) is not willing to receive the said amount form the appellants (OPs). Learned District Form has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.47,673/- (Rs.42,673/- + Rs.5,000/-) - and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the respondent (complainant) which are highly exorbitant. The respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellants (OPs), therefore, the appeal of the appellants (OPs) be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. He placed reliance on A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, 1989 AIR 1239, //11 // 1989 SCR (2) 1; Appeal (Civil) 7653 of 2004 - Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chand Mal Bardia and others decided by Supreme Court on 29.03.2005; Civil Appeal No.4925 of 2011 - InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand, decided by Supreme Court of India on 04.07.2011; Appeal Case No.153/2010 - Mr. Rajeev Mehta Vs. The C.E.O. Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another, decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh on 28.04.2011; Revision Petition No. 28 of 2008 - Shiv Garg Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors. decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 24.04.2012; and First Appeal No.A/12/250 - Adil Irshad Saiyed Vs. Jetlite India Ltd. decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra on 14.08.2012.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 86 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989

7. Shri Ankit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has argued that the District Forum, Raipur (C.G.) has exceeded its territorial jurisdiction in view of specific clause 18 of the Terms and Conditions of Carriage. He further argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is erroneous and the District Forum has wrongly fastened liability on loss of baggage of the respondent on the appellants (OPs). The respondent (complainant) is only entitled to get Rs.200/- per kg and maximum Rs.3,000/- in respect of loss of baggage from the appellants (OPs). The appellants (OPs) are ready to pay the said amount to the respondent (complainant), but the respondent (complainant) is not willing to receive the said amount form the appellants (OPs). Learned District Form has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.47,673/- (Rs.42,673/- + Rs.5,000/-) - and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the respondent (complainant) which are highly exorbitant. The respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellants (OPs), therefore, the appeal of the appellants (OPs) be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. He placed reliance on A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, 1989 AIR 1239, //11 // 1989 SCR (2) 1; Appeal (Civil) 7653 of 2004 - Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chand Mal Bardia and others decided by Supreme Court on 29.03.2005; Civil Appeal No.4925 of 2011 - InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand, decided by Supreme Court of India on 04.07.2011; Appeal Case No.153/2010 - Mr. Rajeev Mehta Vs. The C.E.O. Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another, decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh on 28.04.2011; Revision Petition No. 28 of 2008 - Shiv Garg Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors. decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 24.04.2012; and First Appeal No.A/12/250 - Adil Irshad Saiyed Vs. Jetlite India Ltd. decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra on 14.08.2012.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1151 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Mr.Rajeev Mehla vs The C.E.O., Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd on 28 April, 2011

7. Shri Ankit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has argued that the District Forum, Raipur (C.G.) has exceeded its territorial jurisdiction in view of specific clause 18 of the Terms and Conditions of Carriage. He further argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is erroneous and the District Forum has wrongly fastened liability on loss of baggage of the respondent on the appellants (OPs). The respondent (complainant) is only entitled to get Rs.200/- per kg and maximum Rs.3,000/- in respect of loss of baggage from the appellants (OPs). The appellants (OPs) are ready to pay the said amount to the respondent (complainant), but the respondent (complainant) is not willing to receive the said amount form the appellants (OPs). Learned District Form has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.47,673/- (Rs.42,673/- + Rs.5,000/-) - and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the respondent (complainant) which are highly exorbitant. The respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellants (OPs), therefore, the appeal of the appellants (OPs) be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. He placed reliance on A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, 1989 AIR 1239, //11 // 1989 SCR (2) 1; Appeal (Civil) 7653 of 2004 - Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chand Mal Bardia and others decided by Supreme Court on 29.03.2005; Civil Appeal No.4925 of 2011 - InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand, decided by Supreme Court of India on 04.07.2011; Appeal Case No.153/2010 - Mr. Rajeev Mehta Vs. The C.E.O. Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another, decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh on 28.04.2011; Revision Petition No. 28 of 2008 - Shiv Garg Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors. decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 24.04.2012; and First Appeal No.A/12/250 - Adil Irshad Saiyed Vs. Jetlite India Ltd. decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra on 14.08.2012.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Adil Irshad Saiyed vs Jetlite India Ltd., on 14 August, 2012

7. Shri Ankit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has argued that the District Forum, Raipur (C.G.) has exceeded its territorial jurisdiction in view of specific clause 18 of the Terms and Conditions of Carriage. He further argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is erroneous and the District Forum has wrongly fastened liability on loss of baggage of the respondent on the appellants (OPs). The respondent (complainant) is only entitled to get Rs.200/- per kg and maximum Rs.3,000/- in respect of loss of baggage from the appellants (OPs). The appellants (OPs) are ready to pay the said amount to the respondent (complainant), but the respondent (complainant) is not willing to receive the said amount form the appellants (OPs). Learned District Form has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.47,673/- (Rs.42,673/- + Rs.5,000/-) - and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the respondent (complainant) which are highly exorbitant. The respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellants (OPs), therefore, the appeal of the appellants (OPs) be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. He placed reliance on A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, 1989 AIR 1239, //11 // 1989 SCR (2) 1; Appeal (Civil) 7653 of 2004 - Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chand Mal Bardia and others decided by Supreme Court on 29.03.2005; Civil Appeal No.4925 of 2011 - InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand, decided by Supreme Court of India on 04.07.2011; Appeal Case No.153/2010 - Mr. Rajeev Mehta Vs. The C.E.O. Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another, decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh on 28.04.2011; Revision Petition No. 28 of 2008 - Shiv Garg Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors. decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 24.04.2012; and First Appeal No.A/12/250 - Adil Irshad Saiyed Vs. Jetlite India Ltd. decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra on 14.08.2012.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next