NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3241/2008

AIR DECCAN DECCAB AVUATION LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAURAV ANAND - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. K. MARUTHI RAO

28 Aug 2008

ORDER

Date of Filing: 14 Aug 2008

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3241/2008
(Against the Order dated 19/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1114/2008 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. AIR DECCAN DECCAB AVUATION LTD.No.35/2 Cunningham Road Bangalore-560052Karnataka ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. SAURAV ANAND No.3-65/43,Pavitra 4th Cross 1st Main Lohit DerebailMangalore-575006 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mrs. K Radha Rao for M/S. K. MARUTHI RAO , Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 28 Aug 2008
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

Petitioner was the opposite party. Respondent/ complainant alleged that for the journey on 28th April, 2007 from Bangalore to New Delhi by flight No. DN 669, departing at 08.50 a.m. he had booked the ticket with the petitioner on 9th February, 2007. He also booked the ticket with the petitioner for his onward journey from New Delhi to Patna on the same date. Respondent further alleged that when he reached Bangalore airport he was informed that the flight was no longer operational. Though he was accommodated in the flight leaving at 04.00 p.m. but due to the cancellation of the flight of 08.50 a.m. he had to miss the flight from Delhi to Patna. At the time of cancellation of the ticket an amount of Rs.764/- was deducted. Respondent had to stay overnight in a hotel and had to suffer loss and mental agony. Complaint on contest by the petitioner was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 15th April, 2008 with directions to the petitioner to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent. Petitioner filed appeal against the forum’s order alongwith condonation application. Condonation application and the appeal were dismissed by the State Commission by order dated 19th June, 2008. It is this order which is under challenge in this revision.
 
            Having heard Mrs. Rao, even assuming that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing appeal before the State Commission on given facts, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction in the order passed by the fora below in awarding consolidated amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
 


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOMEMBER