NCDRC imposed compensation of Rs one lakh on Airlines for delay and damages caused to consignment

Complainant also claimed loss on account of delay in receipt of consignment to the tune of Rs. 79,793/-. It is not disputed that there was delay in delivery of second consignment. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that complainant could have taken at least delivery of first consignment just after its receipt and as he himself failed to take delivery in time. OP cannot be burdened for any liability. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent rightly argued that as he submitted consignment in only one parcel and as OP suo moto converted into two packets, complainant could not have taken delivery of first lot and in such circumstances, it becomes clear that OP was responsible for causing delay in delivery of consignment.

 10. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove damage by pleading what was the price on the due date of delivery and what was the price on the actual date of delivery and without that compensation could not have been granted. I agree to some extent with the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant and I deem it appropriate to reduce compensation to Rs. 50,000/- against Rs. 75,000/- allowed by learned State Commission towards damage caused to the goods as well delay in delivery of consignment.

 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that no reasons have been given for allowing compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards harassment, mental agony, etc. Learned State Commission in the impugned order after referring judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh- (2004) 7 CLD 861 (SC) allowed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- without giving any reason for awarding huge compensation when only Rs. 75,000/- were allowed for damages and delay in consignment. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to reduce aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- to meet the ends of justice, as admittedly there was delay in delivery of consignment.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

(Before K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member)

 Malaysian Airline Systems 

V

Dentply India Pvt. Ltd.

First Appeal No. 883 of 2013

Decided on January 5, 2017

Citation:2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3

Print Page

FOREIGN AIRLINES MUST COMPLY WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW: DELHI HC

The Delhi High Court has said that any foreign airline having even one office in the country is bound by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

It was hearing a public interest litigation on Monday seeking the implementation of the Vishakha guidelines on sexual harassment against women at the workplace in the aviation industry.

The case had been transferred as a PIL from another court which was dealing with the plea of an Indian woman, employed with the Sri Lankan Airlines, seeking action against the carrier and its official whom she had accused of sexual harassment.

Print Page