Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/726/2015

Sumit Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Gupta Adv.

27 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	726 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	18.12.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	27.5.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sumit Sharma S/o Mehar Chand Sharma r/o H. No.861, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1. Air India Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCO 162-164, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160-034.

 

2. Air India Ltd. through its Managing Director, 113 Airlines House, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, Parliament Street, Delhi 110001.

 

 

3. British Airways through its Managing Director, DLF plaza Tower, Phase-I, DLF City, Block B, Sector 26A, Sikanderpur Ghosi, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)   :    Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Adv.

 

For OP No.1&2        :    Sh. S.R. Shaudhuri, Adv.

 

For OP No.3          :    Sh. Harsh Nagra, Adv.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

         As per the case, the complainant he was to attend a conference i.e. “Poster Presentation” at Edinburgh from July 26, 2015 to July 29, 2015 at the 42^nd Annual Meeting and Exposition of the Controlled Release Society and as such he purchased return AIR ticket from Delhi to Edinburgh, Scotland and Dingburch , Scotland to Delhi from Opposite Party No.1 by paying Rs.93,172/- to Opposite Party No.1 at Chandigarh. The complainant was to travel from New Delhi for Edinburgh, Scotland on 24.7.2015 and was to take return flight on 1.8.2015 from Edinburgh to New Delhi. On 24.7.2015 the complainant had taken the flight of Opposite Party No.1 from New Delhi for London from where the complainant was asked to travel in the flight of Opposite Party No.3 (internal arrangement between Opposite Party No.1-2 with Opposite Party No.3) and accordingly the complainant reached to Edinburgh, Scotland. The Boarding pass of the complainant from Delhi to London issued by Air India/Opposite Party No.2 then London to Edinburgh issued by Opposite Party No.3 respectively (Annexure C-3 and C-4 respectively).

     The grievance of the complainant is that after reaching Edinburgh, Scotland the complainant was shocked to know that two checked-in-baggage containing personal clothing, small gift items as also papers pertaining to the said conference were missing. The complainant made a complaint in this regard to Opposite Parties with frantic requests to locate the missing baggage. Opposite Party No.3 made a file reference No.EDIBA 42164. It is pleaded that Opposite Party No.3 taking action on his complaint assured to locate the luggage and agreed that it will be supplied at his place of residence in Lennox Court, Bearsden, Glasgow.  It is alleged that due to the non availability of his luggage containing the important documents pertaining to the conference as he could not represent the conference in a prestigious manner, so he had to spend 200 pounds to reconstruct some of the documents.  When the luggage was traced out the complainant was informed and in order to collect his baggage he had to spend 40 pounds to hire a return taxi to collect the same from the Glasgow Airport.  It is further pleaded that due to absence of luggage the complainant had to spend 410 pounds on purchasing clothes, shoes, sleepers and other day to day required goods but could not retain the invoice of the same. It is alleged that no plausible explanation was given for the luggage misplaced and also for the other baggage being damaged Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2.     OPs No.1&2 in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that it is case of ‘checked in baggage’ being carried by two successive carriers on one ticket. Air, Flight No.A1 111 constituting the first leg from New Delhi to London, and the British Airways’ flight No.1460 from London to Edinburg, Scotland, making up the second and final leg of the journey. Averred that as per terms and conditions of Carriage of Passengers and Baggage fragile, perishable items such as money, jewellary, negotiable pps, securities, identifications, business documents, passport and other identification documents or samples etc. should not be placed in checked baggage (Art. 9.1.3). But in spite of that the complainant placed his important papers in the checked baggage, which was clear cut violation of IATA terms and conditions of Air India Rules.  As such the Airlines cannot be held liable because the complainant himself ignored the carrier’s instructions. OPs No.1&2 further averred that as per the Airline procedures and IATA regulations, the terminating airline station (BA/Edinburg in this case) where a property irregularity report is lodged is responsible for conducting the investigation and concluding settlement of claim for missing baggage, delayed delivery pilferage etc. Rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied being wrong.
3.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply admitted that 2 pieces of baggage checked in by the complainant were not delivered to him at his destination, Edinburgh, immediately upon arrival, and also admitted lodging of complaint by the complainant regarding missing of baggage with it. It is further admitted that Opposite Party No.3 offered to deliver the baggage of the complainant to his given address/place of residence. It is asserted that as per procedure the bag was sought to be delivered by Opposite Party No.3  to the address  furnished by the complainant the very next day but the delivery could not be made as there was no one available to accept the baggage. Regarding the allegation containing important documents in the missing baggage, on account of which the complainant could not represent himself in the conference in a prestigious manner is concerned it has been stated that the conditions of carriage of Opposite Party No.3 do not permit business documents to be included in checked in baggage as per article 8(f) of the conditions of Carriage of the Opposite Party No.3.  It is further asserted that as per IATA General conditions of carriage (Passenger and Baggage)  the passenger cannot carry such documents etc. in checked baggage.  Thus it is claimed that in view of advisory contained in conditions of Carriage of Opposite Party No.3 and article 9.1.3 of IATA General Conditions of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage)  the complainant is not entitled for any special damages on account of loss suffered for non availability of the business documents contained in his checked baggage. Further asserted that during the travel from one point to another particularly when the travel includes a transit airport where flights are changed, the baggage of the passengers does not always remain in the custody of the airline and goes through several security check points handled by airport security personnel who are employees of the government of the country and not of the airline.  The volume of luggage that is transported between various cities by airlines is so enormous that an occasional incident of baggage mishandling cannot be ruled out and it is not always possible to identify the reason for the incident.  Keeping the said possibility in view the legislature has framed the law of limited liability of the airline in cases of loss of baggage, damage to baggage and delayed delivery of baggage under Carriage  by Air Act, 1972 schedule 3 22(2), which provides for a maximum liability of SDRs 1000 in case of complete loss of baggage. However in the instant case the baggage of the complainant was not lost but was restored to him within 2 days of his arrival at Edinburgh.  So their liability is limited.
4.     The  Opposite Party No.3 did not deny complainant’s claim as to the taxi fair amounting to 40 pounds spent  by the complainant and claimed that the complainant was asked to file the claim alongwith all the receipts of expenses incurred by him to Opposite Party No.3, together with his bank details so that the reimbursement due to him could be processed into his account but the complainant failed to do so. Thus in such  eventuality the Op No.3 could not process the claim of the complainant in the absence of any receipt or invoice. Further asserted that in the absence of invoice/receipt no presumption can be made as to the expenses stated to have been incurred by the complainant. Further claimed that complainant’s baggage was returned to him within 2 days of his arrival at Edinburgh Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments submitted by the parties and have also perused the record.
7.     Admittedly, the complainant booked return AIR ticket from Delhi to Edinburgh, Scotland and Dingburch, Scotland to Delhi from Opposite Party No.1 by paying Rs.93,172/- to Opposite Party No.1 at Chandigarh. The complainant was to travel from New Delhi for Edinburgh, Scotland on 24.7.2015 and was to take return flight on 1.8.2015 from Edinburgh to New Delhi.  The complainant has filed this complaint with a grouse that after reaching Edinburgh, Scotland the complainant got shocked to know that two checked-in-baggage containing personal clothing, small gift items as also papers pertaining to his conference were missing, which was to be attended by him at Edinburgh from July 26,2015 to July 29,2015. The complainant made a complaint in this connection to Opposite Parties with frantic requests to locate the missing baggage. Opposite Party No.3 made a file reference No.EDIBA 42164. Complainant claimed that Opposite Party No.3 taking action on his  complaint assured to locate the luggage and agreed that the same would be given at his place of residence in Lennox Court, Bearsden, Glasgow.  The complainant disputed that due to the non availability of his luggage containing the important documents pertaining to the conference he could not represent the conference in a prestigious manner which caused him mental harassment. Even the complainant had to spend 200 pounds to reconstruct some of the documents.  When the luggage was traced out the complainant had to spend 40 pounds to hire a taxi to collect the same from the airport.  Besides this the complainant had to spend 410 pounds on purchasing clothes, shoes, sleepers and other day to day required goods but could not retain the invoice of the same.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties the complainant asked for the relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the complaint.
8.     Broadly the OPs No.1&2 denied its liability to compensate the complainant and make an effort to shift its burden if any on Opposite Party No.3. Similarly the Opposite Party No.3 while  admitting the factual matrix of the complaint submitted that they are not liable to compensate the complainant for reconstruction of his presentation documents for the simple reason that their rules does not permit the  passengers to keep their important documents etc. in the luggage. They also denied their liability on account of damage occurred to one of the baggage of the complainant on the ground that the complainant made complaint qua the damage not within the prescribed period of 7 days. Further the claim for 410 pounds spent in purchasing new cloths, shoes etc. was declined in the absence of invoices of expenses incurred by the complainant for proving the alleged loss or damage. The only liability which Opposite Party No.3 admitted is in regard to the taxi fare of 40 ponds spent by complainant in order to collect his baggage. In para 14 of the written statement as well in the arguments the Opposite Party No.3 submitted that the claim amount to 40 pounds towards taxi expenses for which a receipt has been produced by the complainant is not denied.

     

9.     We have gone through the submissions made in writing as well oral submissions advanced by the parties and have also gone through the record and evidence put forth before us. It is very clear from the provisions placed on record by Opposite Party No.1&2 as Annexure R-3/AAA that it was the bounden duty of Opposite Parties to compensate the complainant in case delivery of baggage is delayed beyond 24 hours when a passenger is on a visit to foreign country and has no access to their own wardrobe, then an interim expense of GBP 50.00 or equivalent in local currency is reimbursed. In India the amount is of Rs.3000/-The relevant provision is reproduced as under:-

International services

If delivery of baggage is delayed beyond 24 hours when a passenger is on a visit to a foreign country and has no access to their own wardrobe then an interim expense of GBP 50.00 or equivalent in local currency is reimbursed. In India, the amount is INR3,000/-

 

10.     But it is clear from the submissions of Opposite Party No.3 that it has till date not paid a single penny to the complainant on account of delayed delivery of the baggage nor it compensated him for the harassment suffered by him due to non-availability of his personal belongings contained in the said baggage.
11.     As there is no record on file that the Opposite Party NO.3 delivered the baggage within 24 hours from the time it got lost/misplaced and there is an admission that the complainant has to go all the way to the Opposite Parties No.3 to collect his baggage (which the Opposite Party NO.3 earlier agreed to deliver it at his door step). To collect his baggage he had to hire a taxi by spending 40 pounds. Though the Opposite Party No.3 admitted its liability to reimburse taxi fare of 40 pounds incurred by the complainant but it failed to reimburse the same till the filing of the present complaint nor Opposite Party No.3 made any effort to compensate the complainant, which it was liable as per rules. Thus a clear case of deficiency in service is made out against Opposite Party No.3.  
12.     As regards the refusal of the Opposite Party No.3  to pay for expenditure in respect of clothing etc. on account of absence of any receipt, we feel that the complainant deserves to be compensated for the situation he was put in due to deficient act on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 and regarding non production of receipt by the complainant he has explained that it was not in his mind that he has to knock the door of this Forum for redressal of his grievance.
13.     Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has suffered mental agony and tension due to non-availability of his baggage wherein he had brought his daily necessities of life alongwith certain documents, which were required to be looked into for addressing the conference for which he visited the foreign land. As the Opposite Parties have taken an objection that as per their rules the complainant could not place in his baggage the important documents etc. so complainant deserves not to be compensated for the loss on that account. If this plea of OPs is accepted even then the liability of Opposite Party No.3 cannot be ignored to compensate the complainant for the harassment suffered by him on account of non availability of his baggage. It is suffice to say that belongings of daily necessities of life have rightly been placed in his luggage by the complainant which he never anticipated that it will not reach to the destination of his visit in foreign land. One can visualize the mental harassment suffered by the complainant due to the absence of belongings related to daily necessities of life and also the stress undergone by the complainant when he had to hire a taxi to collect his baggage on the day which was fixed for his presentation for which he visited the foreign land.
14.     In totality we come to the conclusion that Opposite Party NO.3 was negligent in performing its duty which caused immense harassment to the complainant.
15.     As regards claim for compensation on account of damage to one of luggage of the complainant it is suffice to say that complainant did not lodge the complaint in this regard within a period of 7 days as prescribed under the rules so he is not entitled for any compensation on that account.
16.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite No3 is directed as under:-

        

a]  To refund the complainant the taxi charges spent by him for collecting his baggage.

 

b]  To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, which also includes the money spent by the complainant for purchasing clothes/shoes etc..

 

C]  To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.3 within 30 days of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount at (a) and (b) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

27.5.2016

                                                                                Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER