Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal, Holds Investigating Officer Cannot Create Evidence  ||  Supreme Court: NDPS Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Solely Over Co-Accused’s Disclosure  ||  SC: Tax Classification Depends on Goods' Form at Sale, not their End Use  ||  Delhi High Court: No Material Showing Delhi Police Compromised the 2020 Riots Probe  ||  Madras HC Suggests Mandatory Attachment of Properties Suspected to Be Proceeds of Corruption  ||  P&H High Court: Demolition After Lawyer Flagged Corruption Appears Aimed at Silencing Him  ||  Calcutta High Court: Contempt Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Challenge Orders or Attack Judges  ||  Orissa High Court: Marriage Need Not Be Preserved When the Relationship Has Substantially Eroded  ||  SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment    

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