Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.64 seconds)
Indigo Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. & Anr. vs Vimal Tanwani on 7 April, 2015 cites

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 filed written arguments in which it is mentioned that District Forum, Raipur 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.45,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163; Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chand Mal Baradia & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 704; Angile Insulation vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1995) 4 SCC 153; Hakam Singh vs. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd., 1971 (1) SCC 286; M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. N. Sachidanand, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463;
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1151 - K N Saikia - Full Document

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 filed written arguments in which it is mentioned that District Forum, Raipur 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.45,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163; Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chand Mal Baradia & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 704; Angile Insulation vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1995) 4 SCC 153; Hakam Singh vs. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd., 1971 (1) SCC 286; M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. N. Sachidanand, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463;
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 50 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Angile Insulations vs Davy Ashmore India Ltd. And Anr on 18 April, 1995

7. Shri Ankit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has filed written arguments in which it is mentioned that District Forum, Raipur 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.45,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163; Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chand Mal Baradia & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 704; Angile Insulation vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1995) 4 SCC 153; Hakam Singh vs. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd., 1971 (1) SCC 286; M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. N. Sachidanand, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463;
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 107 - 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 filed written arguments in which it is mentioned that District Forum, Raipur 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.45,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163; Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chand Mal Baradia & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 704; Angile Insulation vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1995) 4 SCC 153; Hakam Singh vs. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd., 1971 (1) SCC 286; M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. N. Sachidanand, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463;
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 86 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Air India Ltd. vs Madan Mohan Lal Das on 29 May, 2014

8. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant() has supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and submitted that it does not call for any interference by this Commission. He placed reliance on judgement of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisison, New Delhi in Air India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Madan Mohan Lal Das, III (2014) CPJ 109 (Del.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1