Thursday, 5 April 2018

Supreme Court of India dismisses all Petitions Regarding the CBSE Examination paper Leak case

April 05, 2018
Supreme Court of India dismisses all Petitions Regarding the CBSE Examination paper Leak case  

The Supreme Court of India bench headed by Justice S. A. Bobde and Justice L. Nageswara Rao on 04.04.2018 dismissed a bunch of writ petitions filed by the CBSE students in the stir of the latest event of the leak of the Economics and Mathematics question papers for class 10 and 12 examinations correspondingly.
It was on the basis of a notification issued by the Controller of Examination, the CBSE made the statement against the re-test of class X mathematics examination

Following petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India:-

In the case of Rohan Mathew v. CBSE

A student of Class 10 had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the resolution of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE in short) to terminate and re-conduct the Math exam held on March 28 on distrust of question paper leakage. According to the petitioner, around 16 lakh students appeared in the exam in 11 regions across the country. The unverified distrust is that the question papers seeped in certain parts of the Delhi Region of the CBSE.  Therefore, the petitioner stated that to punish the whole student community for an incident which supposedly took place in one center is illegal and arbitrary in the non-appearance of any evidence to show that the whole examination process was abased.

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, withdrawn the writ petition on the basis of the notification dated 3rd April of the CBSE by which the Board had decided to not re-conduct the Math examination for class 10.

In the case of Reepak Kansal v. UOI

In this petition filed by Counsel Reepak Kansal, it was stated before the Hon’ble bench that on March 28, the CBSE had decided to re-conducting the examinations for the Economics and Mathematics papers for classes XII and X respectively “without considering the impact of the leak”. “The resolution of re-examination controverts the test of proportionality and fairness (as provided under Article 14)”, it was pleaded. Dismissing the petition, the Hon’ble bench stated, “it is not a part of the jurisdiction of this court to see if the paper was writ jurisdiction, we cannot examine the impact of the leakage...this falls within the power of the authorities...”

In the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh v. CBSE

Through this petition, the petitioner sought directions to the CBSE to not conduct an Economics paper re-test for class XII students subsequent to the question paper leak issue. It was also stated in the petition that if at all the test will be held, it should be made non-compulsory.

While dismissing the petition, the bench observed, “It is not a moral concept that an examination is made optional”. Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI

The petitioner-in-person had prayed that re-examination be conducted of all subjects for Class 12 within four weeks and not only of the Economics paper. Further, he had sought an independent investigation by the CBI into the matter. Also, he requested that the CBSE and the HRD Ministry be directed to pay damages and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh each to the students of Class 12 appearing in the re-examination “towards the mental agony, mental stress and inconvenience caused”.

The Hon’ble bench on 04.04.2018 declined to inherit to any of the above prayers. 

Monday, 2 April 2018

Centre Govt. has filed Review Petition in Supreme Court against Supreme Court judgment diluted SC/ST Act

April 02, 2018

Centre Govt. has filed Review Petition in Supreme Court against Supreme Court judgment diluted SC/ST Act

The Centre govt. today has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the March 20 judgment of a two-judge bench which 'diluted" the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by laying down stringent ‘protections’ before registration of a case under it and barred automatic arrests.

Sources said that the petition has been filed by the Ministry of Social Justice and empowerment contends that the March 20 judgment may dilute the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was meant at protective the socially relegated. It contends that such a dilution could decrease fear and lead to violations, making Dalit’s and tribal more defenseless.

This judgment had elicited disapprovals from Dalit MPs and outfits, with BJP MPs and the party’s associates, who met Social Justice Minister Tawar Chand Gehlot and conveyed their anxiety that the SC order may end up to disagreeing justice to SC/STs.

They had asked Gehlot to take the matter up with the Prime Minister. Main opposition party Congress also had claimed to file a review petition.

A Congress Party delegation had met the President of India on the issue.

It is to be noted that Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had also tweeted yesterday: “Review petition by the Government against the SC judgment on SC/ST Protection Act shall be filed positively tomorrow, Monday, April 2.”

Cracking the thrash on "the rampant misuse of the SC/ST Act", a bench of justices A K Goel and U U Lalit ruled that there shall be no immediate arrest of a public or no-public servant.

They also ruled that the accused can be taken into custody only after an official not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent (in case of public servant) or SSP (non-public servant) makes an inquiry and is satisfied that a prima-facie case existed.

SC also said that the accused is also entitled to grant of anticipatory bail if the complaint would found to be mala fide.

Placing down the protections against “misuse” of the Act, the Hon’ble bench had also observed in the judgment: “It has been judicially acknowledged that there are instances of abuse of the Act by vested interests against political opponents in panchayat, municipal or other elections, to settle private civil disputes arising out of property, monetary disputes, employment disputes and seniority disputes. It may be noticed that by way of rampant misuse, complaints are largely being filed particularly against public servants/ quasi-judicial/judicial officers with an oblique motive for the satisfaction of vested interests.”

Saturday, 31 March 2018

Three Law Students Written a letter to Chief Justice of India to re-examine the ban put on entry of law interns on misc. days

March 31, 2018
Three law students interning at the Supreme Court of India had written a letter to Chief Justice of India Mr. Dipak Misra requesting him to re-examine the ban put five years ago on law students and pre-enrolment interns from entering courtrooms of Supreme Court on miscellaneous days stating that it is resulting in law students getting deprived of important lessons on admission of fresh cases.

Ashwariya Aggarwal, a third-year students at Modern College of Law, along with Aman Shekhar and Nemeezia Amin, fourth-year students at Lloyd Law College, had written to Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra requesting that the notice dated 21.08.2013 be re-examined.

The notice which was issued in 2013 announced that from September 2, 2013, law students and pre-enrolment interns would not be issued passes on Miscellaneous Days and their entry to the Supreme Court.

The move was required due to congestion of courtrooms and corridors in miscellaneous days. Many lawyers complained of not being able to reach the courtroom when their cases were called out due to congestion forcing them to take a Passover.

In their letter to CJI Deepak Misra, the students said, “…notice not allowing interns to enter the courtroom would deprive the students from learning as to the admission of fresh cases”.

They said the complete ban on law students who would be part and parcel of “this valuable institution” requires re-examination and suggested measures to regulate crowd if the law students are allowed entry on miscellaneous days.

The suggestions they have placed before the Chief Justice of India are:

1.     Online application to be submitted by law interns but only 100 may be allowed entry on a given miscellaneous day with 10 in each courtroom. The selection of application may be on first come first serve basis.

2.     A certificate may be issued by the Advocate-on-record concerned in favour of the intern certifying that the intern has read the brief and is interested in witnessing the court proceedings and its outcome.

3.     Interns may be allowed after 1130 HRS inside the courtroom.

They have also sought a meeting with the CJI to explain their “mental agony and hardship” owing to the constraint in place.

Monday, 26 March 2018

Bombay Bar Association established a trust for financial support to the advocates who need it.

March 26, 2018
The Bombay Bar Association (BBA) has made a trust for providing monetary care and support to advocates and their clans who need it.
At the festival of the bar association, BBA President Milind Sathe had announced that the donations received from members will be used for welfare activities.
BBA secretary Birendra Saraf published the scheme on March 5 and invited applications from members for the welfare activities.


The scheme puts a determined yearly income cap of Rs. 4 lakh for members or individuals to be eligible. Following are the assistances divided into 4 different categories:

Category 1
(a) Medical expenses of members/individual practicing lawyers in the Bombay High Court & other Courts or Tribunals in Mumbai having a minimum practice of 3 years;

(b) Medical assistance in terms of hospitalization expenses for family members, i.e. wife, children, dependent parents and unmarried brothers and sisters.
Category 2

(c) Scholarship and/or expenses for attending events related to law study for law students studying in Law Schools;

Category 3
(d) Donation/ financial aid to any person or NGO or state agency for the benefit of persons who are affected by natural calamities or disasters or war or armed conflict.

Category 4

(e) Financial aid to non-political organizations working for human rights, access to Justice, legal education, environmental protection;
For receiving assistance under all 4 categories, certain eligibility criteria have also been specified in the scheme as every category has its own criteria.
The scheme states that the applications as far as possible will be processed within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt and on expiry of 20 days from the date of submission, the status of the application shall be informed to the applicant.

Assistance by the Trust:

(i)  For medical expenses in any category, the amount to be disbursed shall not exceed Rs. 25,000 per application.

Friday, 23 March 2018

Supreme Court of India issued directions to the govt. authorities that RTI application fee should not exceed Rs. 50.

March 23, 2018
Supreme Court of India issued directions to the govt. authorities that RTI application fee should not exceed Rs. 50. The Supreme Court of India on 20.03.2018 directed all government authorities to make sure that the fee for an application under Right to Information (RTI) should not exceed Rupees. 50 and the fee for one page information should not be more than Rupees. 5.

The order had passed by a Bench headed by Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit on a bundle of Petitions challenging the Right to Information Rules framed by several authorities.

The Hon’ble Bench had issued the following directions to the govt. authorities.

As a normal Rule, the charge for the application should not be more than Rs.50/- and for per page information should not be more than Rs.5/-. However, exceptional situations may be dealt with differently. This will not debar revision in future if the situation so demands”

No motive needs to be disclosed in view of the scheme of the Act
The third objection is to the requirement, in the Allahabad High Court Rules, for permission of the Chief Justice or the Judge concerned to the disclosure of information. The Bench has made it clear that the said requirement will be only in respect of information which is exempted under the scheme of the Act.

As regards the objection that under Section 6(3) of the Act, the public authority has to transfer the application to another public authority if information is not available, the said provision should also normally be complied with except where the public authority dealing with the application is not aware as to which other authority will be the appropriate authority.

As regards Rules 25 to 27 of the Allahabad High Court Rules which debar giving of information with regard to the matters pending adjudication, it is clarified that the same may be read consistently with Section 8 of the Act, more particularly sub-section (1) 3 in Clause (J) thereof.

 Wherever rules do not comply with the above observations, the same be revisited as per this order since it is based on the mandate of the Act which must be complied with.

One of the Petitions, filed in the year 2012 by Common Cause through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, and had challenged the Allahabad High Court (RTI) Rules, 2006, challenging that these were ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005. It had pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the Rules compared with the Act.

For example, it had pointed out that Rule 3 constrained the information that could be sought on a subject, by laying down that "every application shall be made only for one particular item of information only". Further, Rule 4 had demanded that each application is accompanied by cash, draft or pay order of Rs. 500, drawn in favor of the High Court Registrar General or the District Judge of the concerned District Court.

The Petition had emphasized the fact that this fee was 50 times the fee prescribed by the Centre govt. authorities, which had fixed it at Rs. 10. In reply, the High Court Allahabad had modified the Rules to lower the fees of Rs. 250 per application.

In the same way, the Petition stated that Rule 5 "impedes the common man's access to information" by prescribing Rs. 15 per page as the cost of spreading of information. In a similar manner, it had challenged Rules 5, 20, 25, 26 and 27 of the Rules, stating that these were in clear violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India as well.

While this petition was pending, another Petition was filed challenging the Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Right to Information (Regulation of fees and costs) Rules, 2011. Filed by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Soni, the Petition had contended that the Rule requiring an applicant to pay Rs. 300 was ultra vires the Act.

The Rule, it had contended, had the "effect of abridging and infringing the right to information, thus, subverting the very object of the Act".

Monday, 19 March 2018

Arushi and Hemraj double murder: Supreme Court issue notices on acquittal order of Tarlwars

March 19, 2018

The Supreme Court of India today admitted an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order of acquittal of dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in famous 2008 double murder case of their daughter Aarushi and domestic helper Hemraj.

A bench headed by Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi issued a notice to the dentist couple on the plea preferred by Khumkala Banjade, the wife of Hemraj.

This appeal was filed in December 2017. On March 8, the Central Bureau of Investigation had also filed an appeal against Allahabad High Court’s order dated October 12, 2017 decision acquit the the couple.

The Central Bureau of Investigation said in their plea that the High Court order was inaccurate on various factors.

Vide order dated 12th October, 2017, a bench headed by Justice B K Narayana and Justice A K Mishra of the Allahabad High Court had acquitted the dentist couple by giving them the “benefit of doubt” in the murder which happend in Jalvayu Vihar in Noida on 16.05.2008.

Allahbad High Court had acquitted Talwars against a Ghaziabad CBI court order giving them the sentence of life imprisonment on 26.11.2013, bringing an end to a nine-year torment of the couple.

After Aarushi Talwar was found murdered in her bedroom, Hemraj was primarily considered a suspect of the murder.

However, later on his body too was discovered in a pool of blood a day later on the terrace of the house.

The UP Police accused Rajesh Talwar of murdering his daughter in a fit of temper. Rajesh Talwar was arrested by the police on May 23, 2008.

On 31.05.2008, the Central Bureau of Investigation took over the case and primarily freed the parents but later alleged them guilty for the two murders. On 13.06.2008, Rajesh Talwar's compounder, Krishna was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

10 days later, Raj Kumar, a servant of a doctor friend of the Talwars, and Vijay Mandal, the domestic help of the Talwars' neighbour, were also pinched.

The three of them were later release after no evidence was found against them.

Judgments on Absence and automatic termination/Abandonment of service

March 19, 2018
Continued absence by itself cannot be termed as 'continuance of service has come to an end'. In this regard, support could be had from Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Workmen, (1962) 1 SCR 717 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-

If the service of an employee is brought to an end by the operation of any law that again is another instance where the continuance is disrupted, but it is difficult to hold that merely because an employee is absent without obtaining leave that itself would bring to an end the continuity of his service.

When the regulations provide for the certain drill to be performed before terminating the services of an individual, failure to follow the said drill is bad in law and consequently, the order of termination becomes an order of removal from serviceIn U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Ram Singh Yadav, (1998) 2 SCC 346  the Apex Court has held as under:-

The impugned order is, in fact, an order of removal of the respondent from service. It is not a termination in the strict sense within the meaning of Regulation 19 as the requirements of that Regulation have not been met and that is also not the case of the appellant that the action was under Regulation 19. That being so the impugned order of termination is in fact removal of the respondent from the service and procedure as prescribed in Regulations 84 and 85 had, therefore, to be met. That has admittedly not been done. There is no charge-sheet, no enquiry officer, and no enquiry proceeding. Regulations prescribe a detailed procedure for the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings.

In the above case, the Apex Court ultimately, held that the respondent therein was entitled to resumption of duties but without pay and allowance would be for the period he was absent. The following is the final direction in the above case:-

We, therefore, uphold the order of the High Court setting aside the termination of service of the respondent by order dated 25-5-1978 to the extent that the respondent has to be reinstated in the service though it does not preclude the appellant from holding an enquiry or passing a proper order in accordance with law. However, since on the admission of the respondent himself that he has not worked from 21-7-1977 till the impugned judgment dated 3-7-1989 of the High Court the respondent would not be entitled to any pay and allowances for that period.  This is so as the respondent is at fault in not joining his new posting without any valid reason. Though ultimately if there is no enquiry or the respondent is exonerated this period shall be counted towards his pensionary and other benefits
 In the above case, the period of absence was less than one year but that cannot be taken as a distinguishing feature. For, the ratio decidendi, in that case, was that when regulations provide for certain drill to be followed before an employee's service is terminated, the same should, though not to the full extent, at least to the extent of calling for explanation for not reporting to duty after expiry of leave etc., be followed. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Vijay Krishna Neema, (2009) 5 SCC 567,   which is as under:-

19. This Court upon considering Viveka Nand Sethi (2005) 5 SCC 337 held as under (Shrikant (2006) 11 SCC 42) “60. A provision relating to abandonment of service came up for consideration yet again in Viveka Nand Sethi v. J&K Bank Ltd. before a Division Bench of this Court. This Court opined that although in a case of that nature, principles of natural justice were required to be complied with, a full-fledged departmental enquiry may not be necessary, holding:

. … A limited enquiry as to whether the employee concerned had sufficient explanation for not reporting to duties after the period of leave had expired or failure on his part on being asked so to do, in our considered view, amounts to sufficient compliance with the requirements of the principles of natural justice.

The Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan,(2003) 1 SCC 197, held as under:-

An inadvertent error emanating from non-adherence to rules of procedure prolongs the life of litigation and gives rise to avoidable complexities. The present one is a typical example wherein a stitch in time would have saved nine.

In V.C., Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant,(2006) 11 SCC 42, the Apex Court has held as under:-

51. An order passed by a statutory authority, particularly when by reason whereof a citizen of India would be visited with civil or evil consequences must meet the test of reasonableness. Such a test of reasonableness vis-à-vis the principle of natural justice may now be considered in the light of the decisions of this Court.

52. The question came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd (1993) 3 SCC 259 wherein emphasizing the requirements to comply with the principles of natural justice while terminating the services of the employees on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; it was held that not only the procedure prescribed for depriving a person of his livelihood must meet the challenge of Article 14 but also the law which will be liable to be decided on the anvil thereof.

53. Here again, this Court opined that Article 14 requires that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. It was furthermore held: (D.K. Yadav case )

“Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to an animal existence.  When it is interpreted that the color and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defense. Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory dictates. Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness.”

54.This Court opined that right to life enshrined under Article 21 would include the right to livelihood and thus before any action putting an end to the tenure of an employee is taken, fair play requires that reasonable opportunity to put forth his case is given and domestic enquiry conducted complying with the principles of natural justice.

Empty Formality need not be followed:    Vide Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja,(2008) 9 SCC 31, the Apex Court has stated:-

40. In Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan (2000) 7 SCC 529 the relevant rule provided automatic termination of service of an employee on unauthorized absence for certain period. M remained absent for more than five years and, hence, the post was deemed to have been vacated by him. M challenged the order being violative of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded before taking the action.  Though the Court held that the rules of natural justice were violated, it refused to set aside the order on the ground that no prejudice was caused to M. Referring to several cases, considering the theory of “useless” or “empty” formality and noting “admitted or undisputed” facts, the Court held that the only conclusion which could be drawn was that had M been given a notice, it “would not have made any difference” and, hence, no prejudice had been caused to M.

Tuesday, 13 March 2018

Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Cost on Kerala Govt. for seeking an adjournment for filing an affidavit.

March 13, 2018

The bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta were considering the state’s appeal against the Kerala High Court order which had been ruled in favour of Central Board for Secondary Education schools with regard to orders passed by the state/authority comprising several divisions harmfully affecting the operative of the Central Board for Secondary Education -affiliated schools in Kerala.

In December 2016, the Supreme Court of India had directed the state government to file an affidavit clarifying the following issues:

a.     How many schools have already been granted affiliation by the CBSE and are likely to be impacted by guidelines dated 7th October 2011, and whether the state government intends to enforce the guidelines even in respect of those schools which had already been granted affiliation by the CBSE.

b  How many schools run by the state government or aided by the state government or affiliated with the state board do not comply with the guidelines dated 7th October 2011.
c      The parties will make out a chart indicating the current status of the schools before us with regard to the four guidelines that have been struck down by the high court – that is, the requirement of the CBSE in respect of each of the four guidelines, the requirements as per the guidelines and whether there is compliance with the CBSE requirement or the requirement of the guidelines dated 7th October 2011

  d.  The basis on which the guidelines have been framed by the state government. The state went on seeking adjournments and the matter was posted in January when the bench heeded the state’s request for adjournment and gave it a last chance.

When the case came up on 09.03.2018, the Hon’ble bench observed: “No affidavit has been filed by the State of Kerala for the last one year and only adjournments have been sought. Today also, there is a request for an adjournment for one week for filing the affidavit. We grant the adjournment subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within one week. The aforesaid amount shall be utilized for juvenile justice issue”

Read the order here

Supreme Court issue notices in PIL for Seeking Ban on Lawmakers from Practice

March 13, 2018
The Supreme Court issued notices to the Bar Council of India on a Public Interest Litigation challenging the authorization to an individual to perform the dual role of a lawyer and a lawmaker.
The PIL was filed by Delhi BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya says BCI rules bar lawmakers from practicing as advocates on the ground of “conflict of interest”
The notices incidentally come days after a sub-committee of the Bar Council of India established in their report that MPs, MLAs, and MLCs- cannot be stopped from legal practice.
“Issue notice to the Bar Council of India”, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said adding let us know their views. We want to know what is their perception of the rules”.
The statement came from Attorney General K K Venugopal said that a BCI panel has already observed the issue and decided not to stop lawmakers from practice in court. He further said that issue has already been decided by the committee constituted by the Bar Council of India on 16th February 2016.
The writ petition was filed under Article 32 seeking a ban on lawmakers from practicing as an Advocate (for the period they are Member of Parliament or State Assembly) in the spirit of the Bar Council of India Rule 49 and Article 14 of the Constitution” said Ashwani Upadhyay. He further said that Bar Council of India rule restricts a person who is a salaried employee. He said that he has submitted a detailed representation to the BCI for seeking the ban on lawmakers but yet BCI has not taken any steps in this regard.
 “The legal profession is a noble and demanding one and the apex court has repeatedly frowned upon its practitioners attempting to ride two horses or more at a time,” said Ashwni Upadhaya.

According to BCI Rule 49: “An advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practise and shall, on taking any such employment, intimate the fact to the BCI and shall cease to practice as an advocate, so long he is in such employment.” he further submitted.

Sunday, 11 March 2018

Consumer Commission Orders Compensation for Advocate who did not appear in SC due to luggage misplaced by the Airline:

March 11, 2018

The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Air India to pay compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs each to two Advocates who could not appear before the Supreme Court of Indian on the date of hearing of their case as the coat and gown and other case files was in the luggage which got misplaced by the fault of Airline.

Dibakar Bhattacharjee and Sanjoy Pandit, Advocates who had approached the state commission complaining about the loss of their luggage from the custody of the Air India, while they were on the way to New Delhi from West Bengal by Air India Flight. They contended that as a result of such loss of luggage, they could not release their professional duty before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for which they had to suffer a huge financial loss.

They precisely urged before the state commission that due to non-availability of notes, case files, case references, synopsis of the case etc., relating to concerned three cases which were listed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on that, they could not discuss with seniors and also due to non-availability of coats and gowns, though they entered into the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but, could not appear before the Hon’ble Judges as their entry pass was marked ‘For Consultation only’.

The commission held that: “On receipt of the luggage of the Complainants, it was the sacrosanct duty/responsibility of the OP Airline to safely and securely carry the same till the same was delivered to the Complainants, which they miserably failed to. Thanks to the negligence of the OP Airline, the Complainants unnecessarily suffered harassment, agony, mental tension and loss of professional face, not to speak about the financial loss.  For such gross deficiency in service, the Complainants, in our considered opinion, are entitled to compensation for deficiency in service as enumerated under the Consumer Protection Act.”

Directing two lakh compensation to the complainants, the state commission held that there was a deficiency in service on the part of Appellant Airlines Company in losing the luggage of the Complainants (Advocates), which caused them immense harassment, agony, mental tension and loss of professional face apart from monetary loss.