[audioholic]

Now why is this sudden turn by Air India? Shameful of them to drag in a third person, Mr. Bhattacharjee to form their version of the story that too after all these days

[Turbohead]

Conspiracy theory ahead:
If it's true that Mr. Bhattacharjee wanted an upgrade and was looking for some means to ensure one, what if he actually dipped the fingers of the accused in a cup of water so that the accused takes a leak unknowingly/ or gets the urge to take the necessary steps which eventually led to this? There's no way to prove it either!

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

Good lord, what sort of a drama is unfolding!

Now, Air India crew contest the complainant's version!

Originally Posted by audioholic

Now why is this sudden turn by Air India? Shameful of them to drag in a third person, Mr. Bhattacharjee to form their version of the story that too after all these days

A famous Delhi High Court Judge, Justice Midha, once said, "Both parties know the truth. It is the judge who is on trial."

That Air India has completely lost the plot on this is the understatement of the year. They are letting lawyers rather than leadership & statesmanship drive this bus. No matter where this court case goes Air India loses.

[ninjatalli]

I think it's quite clear and no one is disputing that Mishra urinated on the senior passenger. That's an offense the judge is going to address for sure - what he decides as the penalty is going to be interesting to see going ahead. But honestly, all the negative publicity (that will never die down) plus the impact on his professional front is colossal damage for him for life. Doubt he's going to forget this incident every time he picks a drink in the future.

I think it's also quite clear that Air India staff didn't take the right actions by letting Mishra off the flight without getting him arrested or atleast reporting the incident to the necessary ground staff. The DGCA's decision and actions so far is a right step on this aspect.


As for the see-saw in statements by different individuals, that's kind of expected. I'm guessing the lady was given some support (as mentioned in the crew report mentioned by MoneyControl) which was kind of acceptable to her at that moment. But given how shock and shame works our minds, I'm sure her mindset changed once she got to talk to the other passengers (e.g. S Bhattacharjee) later and she felt she was not treated well and the situation worsened. I'm sure for the courts, this kind of contradictory reports is normal for these kind of cases.

[SuperGirl_Dad]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

A famous Delhi High Court Judge, Justice Midha, once said, "Both parties know the truth. It is the judge who is on trial."

That Air India has completely lost the plot on this is the understatement of the year. They are letting lawyers rather than leadership & statesmanship drive this bus. No matter where this court case goes Air India loses.

Oh, I'm loving this . Air India at its finest. They couldn't handle a simple domestic transfer eloquently. Many would have read about my ordeal with Air India at Mumbai airport.

Link:
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/comme...ok-over-7.html (Your review of Air India | 1 year since Tata took over)

The lady at counter insisted I could take a 23kg suitcase as carryon. I later realized they are wasting my time further so they can say I'm a 'no show' and not refund even part of ticket against the next available flight. The person (Air India helping staff) who was helping me move my luggage suggested I ask them for the next available flight and not waste any more time. Although I lost all my flight fare money, the courtesy of helping staff was not reflected with the officer lady behind counter.

I'm pretty sure the top bosses know very well of Air India staff activities and are turning a blind eye. Why else would they not report the offender to DGCA and police on the day of incident. Their actions are biting them back and biting them hard .

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

I think it's quite clear and no one is disputing that Mishra urinated on the senior passenger.

I'm just curious. Other than giving the benefit of the doubt to the lady, is it really that clear? Is there any indisputable proof? At this point both the airline and the accused have disputed the events and raised counter allegations. To me it sounds like a he said/she said thing and there seems to be a parallel media trial going on including here.

The airline's legal stand doesn't sound as stupid. If you look, they seem to have, in a single stroke changed their role in this event from an incompetent, mute spectator who failed to discharge their duties to someone who, despite their best efforts, appears to have been caught in a dispute between two/three parties, both of whose bonafides have now been called into question. I'm sure a PR firm has been called in for damage control, and you'll see their work change the media narrative in the coming weeks.

I'm wondering why nobody who had a line of sight to the lady has testified yet. Ideally that should be the key

[srini1785]

I think this is fast becoming a farce. I am guessing a forensic (read DNA) test on the woman's cloths to prove the source of the stain and a doctor's testimony that the lady has no incontinence problem would be the prime evidence to seal the case.

The horror!

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

I'm just curious. Other than giving the benefit of the doubt to the lady, is it really that clear? Is there any indisputable proof? At this point both the airline and the accused have disputed the events and raised counter allegations. To me it sounds like a he said/she said thing and there seems to be a parallel media trial going on including here.

The airline's legal stand doesn't sound as stupid. If you look, they seem to have, in a single stroke changed their role in this event from an incompetent, mute spectator who failed to discharge their duties to someone who, despite their best efforts, appears to have been caught in a dispute between two/three parties, both of whose bonafides have now been called into question. I'm sure a PR firm has been called in for damage control, and you'll see their work change the media narrative in the coming weeks.

I'm wondering why nobody who had a line of sight to the lady has testified yet. Ideally that should be the key

I mentioned something similar in my earlier post. Unless someone comes up as an eye-witness who saw the act, things will get messy.

The guy has decided to take along everyone with him. Given that questions are being raised about anyone coming forward, I dont expect any other witness soon.

Can he and his lawyers now sue his ex-employer for terminating him based on hearsay and claim damages since he has taken a "not quilty" stance now?

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

That Air India has completely lost the plot on this is the understatement of the year. They are letting lawyers rather than leadership & statesmanship drive this bus. No matter where this court case goes Air India loses.

Definitely. Looks like everyone is trying to shift the blame on everyone else and just not letting this issue get a clean closure. I had a similar experience with AI customer care last week and this attitude of 'Not my problem I'm doing my job' prevails everywhere.

[thanixravindran]

To all of those who are calling for witness statement, please note the investigation still continues and charge sheet itself is not filed. I think 90 days is the time frame to file charge sheet. What police will do is interrogate the crew and possible co travellers to build a water tight case and obviously the crew report and the system to ascertain the date it is filed and not tampered as evidence. In this case, they mostly won't use this as prosecution evidence but seems the leak is to ensure the accused get it as defence evidence. Witness calling to testify will be during trial.

The hearing happened last week is for police custody which police routinely use to get confession from accused. I believe it is denied as there is no crime enactment possible or needed. The oral comments of judges or lawyer arguments don't or shouldn't influence the trial. I believe we will hear more stories in the bail application stage and I think the accused is lying low to minimize the media focus to appeal at higher courts for bail.

Hopefully a lawyer can clarify but my limited understanding of law based on online reading is that only section 354 (outraging the modesty) is stringent which is non bailable and carries more than 5 years of sentence. Other 2 sections 294 and 509 are public misdemeanor and carry only few months to max 1 year sentence or may even be let off with fine. I am no way condoning the alleged act which was disgusting but in my personal opinion, the accused is fit to be tried in the latter sections but ultimately it is the courts that decide it.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

I'm wondering why nobody who had a line of sight to the lady has testified yet. Ideally that should be the key

I think social media and trial by social media has blurred the understanding of how cases are investigated and put on trial. The 'testify' piece will happen in the court when the court hearings commence. Testifying does not happen on social media or to TRP seeking journalists. The police has in all probability already started the gathering of witnesses and their testimonies or will do so very soon.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by m8002?

Can he and his lawyers now sue his ex-employer for terminating him based on hearsay and claim damages since he has taken a "not quilty" stance now?

Honestly, a need of the hour.
Ex-employer terminated his services without having any jurisdiction on the accusations just to look good on the social media.

Originally Posted by -~=+Killa+=~-

You know if Shankar Mishra had accepted his mistake and truly apologise publicly and compensated the lady with huge amount, he would have eventually be forgiven by people and this would not have been blown out of proportion. But instead he is doing the exact opposite, who will give job to him in the future? Only job he'll get is cleaning public toilets.

On the contrary, now he would be fully right to take Wells Fargo to court.
Also, accepting mistake and apologizing is a good policy in private, however in public you need to be more careful and weight all possible consequences before owning any blame. Learn from public figures and politicians.
People will forget everything in one year.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by alpha1

On the contrary, now he would be fully right to take Wells Fargo to court.

Originally Posted by m8002?

Can he and his lawyers now sue his ex-employer for terminating him based on hearsay and claim damages since he has taken a "not quilty" stance now?

Extremely less chances of him having any success on that.

Most MNC banks require some level of professionalism even outside working hours and this is clearly covered in employee policies; and there are mandatory trainings that cover this point and the possible penalties applicable in case of default. Once the police registered the case (Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 294, 354, 509 and 510), that would have been enough for the bank HR to take the necessary steps.

Also my guess is that he probably was flying back on work matters (office trip) and the bank HR would have made sure the right reasons were highlighted as reasons for his firing. Even in an outcome where the case is somehow dismissed against him, the maximum his lawyers would be probably able to get is to ensure his name isn't blacklisted (by Wells Fargo) for other future employers.

[maximus_fiat]

This case is going to get more murkier. Media trial is ongoing and there are views and counter views. Just a few days ago the guy was getting based all around, now scenario has changed slightly.

From what I understand, crew has limited time (24 hrs) to submit flight report. Since the news came out almost after a month, crew report would have been filled submitted by then. Chances of report tampering is highly unlikely.

In all these commotion, nothing has been mentioned about the co-passenger seated besides the lady. In my opinion the co-passenger testimony would hold significance.

Experts may chime in, but close to 2 months into the incident, is there a possibility of DNA sampling either from the seat (which would have been cleaned), aircraft carpet or from the clothes / bag / shoes ?

[Chetan_Rao]

This is going to end with 'The seat peed itself!', isn't it?