logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 (Cons.) Case No.093 print Preview print Next print
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case No : Revision Petition No. NC/RP/247 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER
Parties : G. Alagesan Versus M/s. Gulf AIR
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Sumit Srivastava, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----\r\n
Date of Judgment : 24-03-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Compensation
- Deficiency of service
- Loss of business
- Revision petition

3. Summary:
The petitioner challenged the award of Rs. 11,300 for air‑ticket charges and Rs. 1,00,000 for deficiency of service, monetary loss and mental agony granted by the District Forum. He also sought an additional Rs. 10 lakhs for loss of business, alleging inability to attend a meeting. The State Commission rejected the further claim, finding no evidence to substantiate it. On revision, the higher court examined the record, found no merit in the petitioner’s additional claim, and saw no reason to disturb the State Commission’s order. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Considered;

2. The original Complaint Case No. 314 of 2019 filed by the Petitioner was allowed by the Ld. District Forum, Chennai, to the extent that it had directed payment for an amount of Rs. 11,300/- towards the air-ticket charges paid by the Complainant apart from Rs. 1.00 lakh towards deficiency of service, monetary loss and mental agony, alongwith cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

3. The Petitioner was dis-satisfied with the above compensation granted to him by the Ld. District Forum. But the Ld. State Commission found no merit in his FA No. 492 of 2023 and was of the considered opinion that any additional compensation for lost of business could not awarded to the Appellant/Complainant as he had been unable to prove such loss by adducing any evidence.

4. We have perused the material on record and find no reasons to disagree with the view taken by the Ld. State Commission. Suffice it to say, the Complainant had prayed for compensation of Rs. 10.00 lakhs of income on account of his failure to attend a business meeting. But it appears that nothing was placed on records of the Ld. Fora below to substantiate the claim, nor any details pertaining to the alleged loss were provided.

5. We, therefore, find no reasons to interfere with the impugned Order. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal