Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Sarabjit Singh vs Jet Airways on 29 March, 2017 cites

M/S. Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Ltd on 20 October, 2009

3. Complaint was contested by Op No. 1 as Op No. 2 was ex-parte before the District Forum. Op No. 1 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act being false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant; the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the judgment of the First Appeal No. 760 of 2016 4 Hon'ble Supreme Court "Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.", in Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004; complaint is not maintainable as he has sought redressal of others also, who have not authorized the complainant to file the complaint on their behalf; there is no warranty as per the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 as amended by Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act, 2009, unless special declaration of interest in respect of the baggage and has paid a supplementary sum, the carrier shall be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it is proved that the sum is greater than the passenger's actual interest in delivery at destination and that the complainant did not declare the value of the contents of the said baggage. On merits, it was denied that the complainant alongwith family members were going for attending the marriage or they possessed the gold jewellery as alleged by them in the complaint. It was denied that the complainant inspected the whole baggage in the presence of Airport Authorities and the staff of the Ops and found gold jewellery set and watch missing from the Bag. As per the terms and conditions available on its official website, the complainant was required to clearly indicate the valuable in the baggage, otherwise, carrier's liability will be according to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 as amended by Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act, 2009. However, in the present case no such declaration was made by the complainant and no supplementary sum for the same was paid while check-in at Amritsar Airport. It was denied that the Ops are liable to pay Rs. 2,58,000/- as claimed by the complainant in his complaint. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 376 - Full Document

Sri Narasimhaswami, Namagiri Amman And ... vs Muthukrishna Iyengar on 24 August, 1961

(Narasimha Swami v. Muthnkrishna, AIR 1962 Madras 244). It may also be pointed out that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon that person. It is therefore for the opposite party to come and to explain how the goods were dealt with while they were in its custody in its warehouse."
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1