Stories

  • Senior Citizen Left Hungry and Thirsty in Airport Shuttle: Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Alliance Air Accountable

    In a recent case a passenger named Smt. Shashi Singhai, who was a senior citizen, suffered from poor service during long flight delay, due to which she filed a complaint against the airline Alliance Air Aviation Limited. She had booked an economy class ticket with meals from New Delhi to Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Her flight was supposed to leave at 9:50 AM. Due to a delay, the airline cancelled her first boarding pass and gave her a new one showing a departure time of 11:15 AM.

    After passengers boarded the plane, the airline announced there was a technical problem. Everyone was asked to get off the plane and wait in the shuttle bus. They had to sit there for more than two hours without drinking water or access to toilets. Ms. Singhai, who is a senior citizen and diabetic, said she suffered a lot during this time.

    Though Ms Singhai had paid for meals, she was not given any food, and water was given only when asked. She did not receive any help from the airline. She said she remained without food the whole day. Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the Delhi Consumer Commission.

    Alliance Air contended that the delay happened due to technical issues beyond its control. It also said the flight was diverted because of bad weather. The airline argued that the shuttle bus was not under its control and that, as per DGCA rules and its terms and conditions, it was not responsible for delays or diversions caused by special circumstances.

    The Commission observed that there was no denial by the airline that passengers were made to wait in the shuttle for more than two hours. The Commission noted that even assuming there was engineering trouble in the aircraft, passengers could have been accommodated inside the airport and provided access to washrooms and basic refreshments. Instead, they were “held captive in the shuttle” without refreshment or access to public facilities.

    The Commission further observed that the airline had not placed on record any document to substantiate its claim that the flight was diverted due to bad weather at Bilaspur. It also noted that there was no denial regarding the failure to provide the complainant’s pre-booked meal.

    Holding that the airline had been highly deficient in providing services to the complainant, particularly considering that she was a senior citizen who had to spend the entire day without food despite having booked a meal, the Commission allowed the complaint. Alliance Air Aviation Limited was directed to pay ₹1,00,000 to the complainant within three months from the date of the order, failing which the amount would carry interest at 5% per annum until realisation.

    If you have purchased a product or service and are not happy with the outcome, Voxya helps you take effective legal action against brands, all from the comfort and safety of your home.

    File a complaint now

  • NCDRC Holds Royal Enfield and Dealer Responsible For Persistent Oil Leakage

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hold Royal Enfield and its dealer were responsible for poor service because a new motorcycle had oil leakage from the first day of delivery.

    The customer bought a Royal Enfield Thunderbird 350 in 2015. Oil started leaking on the same day. Even after many repairs at the service centre, the problem continued. The customer said the bike had a manufacturing defect and asked for replacement or full refund but received no response. Aggrived by this, he filed a complaint against Royal Enfield and its dealer.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mumbai first ordered replacement or refund with compensation. Later, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission changed this and said only the engine should be replaced.

    Finally, NCDRC decided that since no expert proof of manufacturing defect was given, full bike replacement was not required. But because the customer suffered for years, the Commission ordered free engine replacement, ₹50,000 compensation, and ₹25,000 legal cost. If delayed, extra interest and monthly penalty would apply.

    If you have purchased a product or service and are not happy with the outcome, Voxya helps you take effective legal action against brands, all from the comfort and safety of your home.

    File a complaint now

  • Chandigarh Commission Bars Restaurants from Charging Above MRP on Sealed Water Bottles

    The Chandigarh Consumer Court held that restaurants cannot charge more than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for pre-packaged items like bottled water. It clarified that MRP already includes taxes and profit, and no extra amount can be added.

    Very recently, a customer went to Ghazal Restaurant in Chandigarh, where she was charged ₹55 for a sealed bottle of “Aquafina” water, even though the MRP printed on the bottle was only ₹20. Furthermore, the restaurant added GST to the inflated price of ₹55, even though the MRP already includes all taxes. She was disappointed and filed a complaint against the restaurant, which was first dismissed by the District Consumer Commission, but she did not give up and filed an appeal before the Chandigarh State Consumer Commission.

    The restaurant admitted that it charged ₹55 for a bottle of water. However, it argued that Ghazal is a well-known and respected restaurant that offers a premium atmosphere, comfort, and quality service. According to the restaurant, customers pay for the overall dining experience and not just for the product itself, so charging more was not an unfair trade practice.

    The State Commission disagreed. It explained that under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is the highest price at which a packaged product can be sold, and it already includes all taxes. The Commission clarified that when a restaurant sells a packaged item, it acts as a retailer, even if the sale happens inside the restaurant. While restaurants are free to decide the prices of the food they prepare, they cannot charge more than the MRP for packaged goods. Holding Ghazal Restaurant guilty of unfair trade practice, the Commission ordered it to refund ₹25 charged above the MRP and to pay ₹3,000 as compensation to the complainant.

    If you have purchased a product or service and are not happy with the outcome, Voxya helps you take effective legal action against brands, all from the comfort and safety of your home.

    File a complaint now

    If you’re looking to hire a lawyer to file your case, click the given link – https://voxya.com/service/consumer-court-case

  • Chennai Consumer court orders Leela Palace to pay ₹10 lakh after housekeeping staff enters occupied room with master key

    Very recently, a Chennai-based advocate couple filed a complaint against the Leela Palace Hotel, Udaipur, after booking a one-day stay at the hotel on January 26, 2025, for an amount of ₹55,500.

    The complainant alleged that during their hotel stay, a housekeeping staff used a master key and suddenly enter their room while she and her husband were inside the washroom. Even after the couple shouted “no service,” the staff member still entered the room and allegedly peeped through a broken washroom door. This incident caused the couple severe mental stress and discomfort.

    The couple immediately informed the hotel reception about what happened, but the hotel did not take quick or proper action. Being aggrieved by the situation, they filed a case against the hotel in the Chennai Consumer Commission.

    In its defence, the hotel manager claimed that there was no “Do Not Disturb” sign on the door and that the housekeeping staff followed internal rules by ringing the doorbell before entering.

    However, the Commission did not accept this explanation. It observed that the staff member entered the room within less than a minute of ringing the doorbell, which was unreasonable, especially when the washroom was clearly in use. The Commission said the staff should have first checked with the reception to confirm whether the room was occupied. It also pointed out that the hotel failed to submit its standard operating procedures, raising doubts about staff training and basic conduct. The delay in providing CCTV footage and the fact that the camera outside the room was not working further weakened the hotel’s case.

    The Commission held that allowing staff to enter an occupied room was a serious failure in service and a clear violation of the guests’ privacy. As a result, the hotel was ordered to refund the room charge of ₹55,000 with 9% interest from January 26, 2025, pay ₹10 lakh as compensation, and ₹10,000 towards legal costs, within two months.

    If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

    If you are looking for legal advice for a consumer case then you can Talk To A Lawyer Now!