Mohammed Ayub Tonk had applied to the Haj Committee of India through the Rajasthan State Haj Committee to undertake a Haj pilgrimage. After completion of all formalities, he went for Haj.
On the way back, Tonk was carrying 13 bags which he deposited at the check-in counter of Al Wafeer Airlines. When he landed in India, four bags were missing. He lodged a complaint, but the bags could not be traced.
Tonk file a complaint before the District Forum against the airlines as well as the National and Rajasthan State Haj committees and its officials.
Neither the airline nor the Haj committees bothered to file a reply or to contest the case. So the forum allowed the complaint and held the airline as well as the Haj committees jointly and severally liable.
The National Haj Committee challenged this order before the Rajasthan State Commission. However, it did not make the airline party to the appeal. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the forum’s order.
The National Haj Committee filed a revision petition questioning the orders holding it to be liable, and contended that it could not be held liable.
16/09/19 Jehangir B Gai/Times of India
To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline
On the way back, Tonk was carrying 13 bags which he deposited at the check-in counter of Al Wafeer Airlines. When he landed in India, four bags were missing. He lodged a complaint, but the bags could not be traced.
Tonk file a complaint before the District Forum against the airlines as well as the National and Rajasthan State Haj committees and its officials.
Neither the airline nor the Haj committees bothered to file a reply or to contest the case. So the forum allowed the complaint and held the airline as well as the Haj committees jointly and severally liable.
The National Haj Committee challenged this order before the Rajasthan State Commission. However, it did not make the airline party to the appeal. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the forum’s order.
The National Haj Committee filed a revision petition questioning the orders holding it to be liable, and contended that it could not be held liable.
16/09/19 Jehangir B Gai/Times of India
0 comments:
Post a Comment