New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the national consumer forum’s order, but only after asking Jet Airways (India) to deposit 50% (Rs 12.5 lakh) of the Rs 25-lakh penalty amount with its registry within two weeks.
Jet Airways had challenged the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) order that asked it to deposit Rs 25 lakh as penalty in the Consumer Welfare Fund under the ministry of consumer affairs for indulging in “unfair trade practices” by way of alleged misleading advertisements.
In its appeal, the airline had denied the allegations, saying the fine print of the ad had made it clear that the tickets were for Rs 500 onwards and conditions apply.
A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur while seeking response from the Gujarat-based consumer organisation Jagrut Nagrik, an NGO, the complainant that had taken a host of airlines to the consumer court and won, stayed the apex consumer court’s order.
Senior counsel Shyam Divan and counsel Ujwal Rana, appearing for Jet Airways, had argued that there was no intention of deceiving or misleading passengers and the advertisements did say that taxes and surcharges would be extra.
05/12/15 Financial Express
To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline
Jet Airways had challenged the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) order that asked it to deposit Rs 25 lakh as penalty in the Consumer Welfare Fund under the ministry of consumer affairs for indulging in “unfair trade practices” by way of alleged misleading advertisements.
In its appeal, the airline had denied the allegations, saying the fine print of the ad had made it clear that the tickets were for Rs 500 onwards and conditions apply.
A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur while seeking response from the Gujarat-based consumer organisation Jagrut Nagrik, an NGO, the complainant that had taken a host of airlines to the consumer court and won, stayed the apex consumer court’s order.
Senior counsel Shyam Divan and counsel Ujwal Rana, appearing for Jet Airways, had argued that there was no intention of deceiving or misleading passengers and the advertisements did say that taxes and surcharges would be extra.
05/12/15 Financial Express
