SURINDER JATHAUL Vs. EMIRATES INDIA/NICOLETE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 180/13 - Surinder Jathaul Vs. Emirates India by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner took OP/Emirates Flight from Dubai on 29.9.2009. While complainant was sitting on seat 31K, a heavy suitcase placed in a hatch above, fell on his head and caused injury. Air Hostess advised complainant to get admitted in the hospital immediately, but complainant refused and after landing at Indira Gandhi International Airport, complainant managed to reach Chandigarh. Later on, complainant asked OP to pay 5000 Canadian dollars to enable complainant to get expert medical advice and care, which was refused. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and raised objection of jurisdiction and other objections that complainant had not suffered any significant injury and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.50,000/ - as compensation to the complainant along with Rs.11,000/ - as litigation cost. Complainant filed appeal before learned State Commission for enhancement of compensation which was dismissed against which; this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) PETITIONER submitted that petitioner is entitled to get additional amount as per Montreal Convention of 1999, implemented by the Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act, 2009 and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum has committed error in not allowing compensation, as per aforesaid Act; hence, revision petition be admitted.