Air India ordered to repay retd doctor after Covid flight dispute
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The district consumer disputes redressal commission in Sangrur held Air India and its managing director liable for "deficiency in service and unfair trade practices" after the airline rejected multiple requests for rescheduling in Jan 2022 and instead demanded an additional ₹15,500. Dr Surinder Singla, then 62, and his wife, Neena, had paid more than ₹1.5 lakh for round-trip tickets from Delhi to San Francisco.
With Singla forced to cancel his return flight after testing positive, the couple ultimately spent an another more than ₹1 lakh on fresh tickets.
In its ruling, the commission ordered Air India to refund more than ₹1 lakh with 7% annual interest from Oct 2022, and to pay ₹10,000 each in compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. The court gave the airline 60 days to comply or face penalties.
The panel, led by president Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, cited a 2020 Supreme Court judgment requiring airlines to refund passengers whose flights were disrupted by the pandemic.
MakeMyTrip, through which the tickets were booked, was cleared of responsibility as only a facilitator.
The order was passed ex parte after Air India failed to appear during hearings. Advocate Yogesh Gupta, representing the Singlas, called the decision "a victory for passengers unfairly burdened by rigid airline policies". Air India has until Sept 26 to comply with the order.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
High court agrees to hear PIL against Kothagudem corp formation
Hyderabad: A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin of the Telangana high court on Wednesday brushed aside objections raised by the court registry and agreed to hear a public interest litigation challenging the formation of the Kothagudem Municipal Corporation. The petition, filed by advocate and social worker J Shivaram Prasad of Paloncha, contests the Telangana Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2025 and a subsequent govt order (GO No. 103, dated May 28, 2025) through which Kothagudem and Paloncha municipalities, along with seven gram panchayats of Sujathanagar mandal, were merged to create the new corporation. Petitioner's counsel Chikkudu Prabhakar argued that the merger is unconstitutional, illegal, and arbitrary as it includes Scheduled Areas, where the 74th constitutional amendment relating to municipalities does not apply. He contended that the move violates the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, and several Supreme Court rulings safeguarding tribal rights. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad | Gold Rates Today in Hyderabad | Silver Rates Today in Hyderabad The counsel further alleged that no consultations were held with gram sabhas nor were public objections invited before the merger, in violation of the principles of natural justice. He maintained that incorporating predominantly tribal and rural areas into the municipal corporation would deprive local villagers of their constitutional and livelihood rights. The PIL seeks to quash the amendment and the GO, restrain the govt from proceeding with ward delimitation and elections to the new corporation, and suspend all consequential steps until the matter is adjudicated. The bench directed the case to be listed for detailed hearing shortly. Land regularisation plea In a separate matter, the high court on Tuesday heard the state govt's plea to vacate an earlier stay order that has stalled the regularisation of certain agricultural land transactions. The govt submitted that under the Telangana Bhu Bharati Act- 2025, small and marginal farmers who purchased agricultural land through unregistered sale agreements prior to June 2, 2014, and have been in possession for more than 12 years, are eligible for ownership rights. It pointed out that applications for regularisation had earlier been accepted between Oct 12 and Nov 10, 2020, under the old Act, but an interim order of the high court had halted further processing. Appearing for the state, advocate general A Sudarshan Reddy argued that the interim order, passed in 2020, should now be lifted to enable the govt to process these pending applications under the new law. The counsel for the petitioner opposing such regularisation sought time to file a reply. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin, posted the case to Aug 26 for further hearing. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Fortis Healthcare still heals portfolios, but valuations are running hot.
Covid took away millions of lives, but it also brought to light one segment that may be worth investing in — hospitals. With no major chain other than Apollo Hospitals a decade ago, analysts paid little attention to the segment. Even after the pandemic changed that, Fortis Healthcare Ltd. was a laggard, thanks to charges of malpractices of its ousted promoters. That hangover seems to be receding. Fortis Healthcare stock is up 80% in the past
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
MEA rejects Nepal's claims over Lipulekh after India, China restart trade through border points
India on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) rejected Nepal's objection to resumption of India-China border trade through the Lipulekh Pass in Uttarakhand, stating that Kathmandu's arguments are not based on 'historical facts'. 'Our position in this regard has been consistent and clear. Border trade between India and China through Lipulekh Pass had commenced in 1954 and has been going on for decades. This trade had been disrupted in recent years due to COVID and other developments, and both sides have now agreed to resume it,' said Randhir Jaiswal, Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs. 'As regards territorial claims, our position remains that such claims are neither justified nor based on historical facts and evidence. Any unilateral artificial enlargement of territorial claims is untenable,' he said. 'India remains open to constructive interaction with Nepal on resolving agreed outstanding boundary issues through dialogue and diplomacy,' Mr. Jaiswal added. Nepal's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday objected to the resumption of border trade between India and China that was announced during the India visit of Wang Yi, China's Foreign Minister on Tuesday (August 19, 2025). The development acquires diplomatic significance as Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri earlier this week (August 17-18, 2025) visited Nepal and invited Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli to visit India in September . 'The Nepalese government is clear that the official map of Nepal has been included in the constitution of Nepal and that the map shows Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh and Kalapani east of the Mahakali River as integral parts of Nepal,' said the press statement from MoFA of Nepal after India in a bid to improve ties with China announced that border trade with China would resume through Lipulekh Pass in Uttarakhand, Shipki La Pass in Himachal Pradesh, and Nathu La Pass in Sikkim.
