Supreme Court: State Cannot Acquire Temple Property Through Gift Deed  ||  Supreme Court: HC Registry Should Exclude Court Vacations When Listing Cases After Fixed Days  ||  Supreme Court Flags Stark Non-Compliance With Directions on CAPF Cadre Review  ||  Supreme Court: Internet Access and Use is a Fundamental Right, Including for Children  ||  Supreme Court: Letters Patent Bench Cannot Interfere Merely Over Errors of Fact or Law  ||  Supreme Court: Voters May File Complaints Against Candidates over False Affidavits under RP Act  ||  Madras HC: Using Children in Campaign is Inappropriate but Does Not Invalidate Election  ||  Allahabad HC: Section 69 BNS Cannot Be Invoked by Transgender Woman in False Marriage Promise Case  ||  Delhi High Court Permits Britannia’s ‘No Added Sugar, Maida or Palm Oil’ Claim on Biscuit Packs  ||  Calcutta High Court Bars Deportation of Alleged Bangladeshi Woman until CAA Application is Decided    

Air Arabia v. Pagdaloo Prashant Naidu & Ors. - (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) (19 Aug 2016)

Revisional powers of National Commission can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in impugned order

Consumer

In instant case, deficiency in service alleged against present Petitioners was in respect of cancellation of flight. State Commission allowed Complainant’s appeal and awarded compensation.

Air Arabia failed to inform complainants regarding cancellation of their flight and rescheduling of the same. As a result, Complainants had to face considerable harassment at airport for over six hours. Hotel provided by OPs No.1 to 3-Thomas Cook at Nairobi was below standard. Counsel could also not deny that, vehicle provided for the tour was very old and not in a good condition and broke down on returning from Kenya. The City Tour was also not given as per schedule. Both Petitioners held guilty of deficiency in service in quality of service rendered to complainants.

Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed that revisional powers of National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. Commission dismissed Petition holding that, no jurisdictional or legal error had been shown in impugned orders to call for interference under Section 21 (b) of Act. The orders of the State Commission do not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity.

Relevant : Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Tags : SERVICE   DEFICIENCY   COMPENSATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved