THE BRANCH MANAGER INDIGO AIRLINES Vs. KALPANA RANI DEBBARMA
LAWS(SC)-2020-1-81
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 28,2020

The Branch Manager Indigo Airlines Appellant
VERSUS
Kalpana Rani Debbarma Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SMT. SWARNA KATARU VS. M/S LIFE CELL INERNATIONAL PVT. LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2021-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD PREMCHAND ROHIDA VS. M/S. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2021-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
SGS INDIA LTD VS. DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-24] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellants, who are representatives of two different branches of an aviation company operating low cost air carrier under the name and style of M/s. Indigo Airlines have filed these appeals, taking exception to the judgment and order dated 12.9.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, 'the National Commission') in Revision Petition Nos. 15201521/2018. Thereby, the revision petitions filed by the appellants came to be rejected and the judgment and order dated 22.8.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (for short, 'the District Forum') in Case No. CC35/2017, as modified by the Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala (for short, 'the State Commission') vide judgment and order dated 22.2.2018 in Appeal Case Nos. A.53.2017 and A.61.2017, directing the appellants to pay to the respondents a compensation of Rs.51,432/ (Rupees fifty one thousand four hundred thirty two only) within two months failing which to pay the same alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, came to be confirmed. Additionally, a cost of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees twenty thousand only) for filing the revision petitions against such meagre compensation amount was also imposed.
(3.)At the outset, the appellants made it clear that they were not so much concerned about the amount of compensation/cost ordered to be paid to the respondents, but have serious grievance about the sweeping observations made by the three fora, which were untenable, both on facts and in law. The appellants agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees one lakh only) in the District Forum, which was a condition precedent for issuing notice to the respondents vide order dated 13.11.2018. That amount has been deposited and also withdrawn by the respondents. The matter, therefore, proceeded with the clear understanding that the appellants will not insist for refund of the amount, even if the appeals succeed on merits. The respondents, though entered appearance, the Court requested Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel to appear as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.