Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vibhu Bakhru, J., disposed of a petition before it impugning para 3.2 of the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) dated 06.08.2010 issued by the DGCA. The petitioner herein was aggrieved by the airline denying boarding to him on account of overbooking.

The petitioner claimed that para 3.2 of the impugned CAR permits overbooking of flights which, according to the petitioner, cannot be permitted. The impugned para, on plain reading revealed that the para merely recognizes the practice (of overbooking) followed by some airlines and provides for compensation to inconvenienced passengers. The paragraph does not permit any airline to carry out the practice, neither does the practice gain any force of law by virtue of the CAR. It was further clarified that the impugned paragraph, in no way, affected any consumer redressal action preferred by aggrieved passengers, and thus, did not limit compensation. Petition dismissed. [Pallav Mongia v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7006, decided on 02.02.2018]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.