SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.K.NAIK, R.C.JAIN
Kingfisher Airlines Limited – Appellant
Versus
Lata Sikri – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vaisalya Vigya, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate.

ORDER

R.C. Jain, Presiding Member—Aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 293 of 2011, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. (opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum) has filed the present petition, purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’). The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh (for short the ‘District Forum’) in complaint case No. 603 of 2010. The complaint before the District Forum was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Airlines in not issuing the boarding pass to her on a Delhi-Hyderabad flight for which the complainant held confirmed / OK ticket. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint of the complainant with the following directions:

“From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed. So, we accept the complaint and decide the sa





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top