cause of action has different meanings in different contexts

The term "cause of action" is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. JT 2009 (4) SC 191 (2003) 9 SCC 50 (2006) 1 SCC 164 Generally, it is described as "bundle of facts", which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, "cause of action" means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. "Cause of action" is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. (See: Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty & Ors.4). 

Supreme Court of India

Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co vs National Insurance Co. & Anr on 10 July, 2009

Author: D Jain

Bench: D.K. Jain, R.M. Lodha

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1592293/

CPA: both travel agent and airlines are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation

  In Air India Vs Harpreet Singh & Ans. reported in III (2003) CPJ 123 (NC) wherein the ticket was not reconfirmed by the passenger, the National Commission has held that there was no question of reconfirmation when travel agent had issued a ticket with confirmed status.  The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:                                                                                                     

“Both these points are without substance.  Travel agent was the accredited agent of IATA of which Air India is a Member.  An argument that Air India could not suffer for the fault of the agent is against the basic principles of law particularly against the provisions of the Contract Act.  Air India is certainly liable for the negligence of its agent.  Ticket was purchased on 23.02.1999 and Harpreet Singh, the passenger, was to take the flight on 25.02.1999, within 72 hours of purchase of the OK ticket.  There was no question of any reconfirmation when travel agent had issued a ticket with confirmed status.  Harpreet Singh was to join university in Sydney on 01.03.1999 for higher studies.  We have not been shown any condition requiring confirmation in a case like the present one.”

  The National Commission in Express Travel vs M.R. Shah III (2002) CPJ NC has held that both travel agent and airlines are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

NCDRC _benefit of escalation of the price Rate of interest on refund of amount

 They are asking for return of the amount. The rates of the flats have already been increased by leaps and bounds. See the law laid down in K.A. Nagamani Vs. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal Nos.6730-6731 of 2012, dated 19.09.2012 arising out of SLP (C ) No. 35226-35227 of 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold :-

                       9. .. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then, the party is suffering a                                            loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being                               deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that                             flat/plot. Therefore, the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher ...

It was further held that :-

                   26. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeals and pass the following order:-

                         i) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant complainant, interest at the rate of 18% per                               annum on Rs.2,67,750/- from the date of its respective deposit till the date of realization with                         further direction to refund the amount of Rs.3,937/-, to her, as directed by the Consumer Forum.

                        ii) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant complainant further sum of Rs.50,000/- as                                compensation for deficiency in service on their part.

                     iii) The respondent is also directed to pay the appellant complainant, a sum of Rs.20,000/-                                   towards cost of the litigation incurred by her.