NCDRC asks Malaysia Airlines to pay Rs 1 lakh for goods’ damagehttps://indianexpress.com/article/business/aviation/ncdrc-asks-malaysia-airlines-to-pay-rs-1-lakh-for-goods-damage-4467930/

NCDRC asks Malaysia Airlines to pay Rs 1 lakh for goods’ damage

According to the complaint filed by the firm, it had engaged the services of the airline on November 12, 1999, to airlift a consignment to New Delhi from Los Angeles.

The apex consumer commission has directed Malaysia Airlines to pay a compensation of Rs one lakh to a city-based private company whose consignment from Los Angeles in the USA was delayed and was found damaged. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was considering an appeal filed by the airline against the Delhi State Commission’s order directing it to pay a compensation of Rs 75,000 towards the loss incurred and Rs one lakh towards the harassment and mental agony to the firm.

Watch what else is making news:

While holding the airline guilty for the delay in delivering the consignment to Dentply India Pvt Limited, the Commission slashed the compensation granted by the state commission after accepting the contention of airline that the “huge” compensation was awarded without proper reasoning.

“I agree to some extent with the submission of counsel for the appellant and I deem it appropriate to reduce compensation to Rs 50,000 against Rs 75,000 allowed by State Commission towards damage caused to the goods as well delay in delivery of consignment,” the Commission headed by Presiding member K S Chaudhari said while also reducing the amount for mental agony to Rs 50,000 from Rs one lakh.

Advertising

According to the complaint filed by the firm, it had engaged the services of the airline on November 12, 1999, to airlift a consignment to New Delhi from Los Angeles.

It was further alleged that only a part of the consignment arrived in India on its scheduled date of December 15, 1999, and the other part came on January 6, 2000, and in a damaged condition.

The airline had denied the allegation and claimed that there is no proof about the damage claims by the firm.