Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/917/2017

Shakun Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

01 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	917/2017
Date of Institution	:	05.12.2017
Date of Decision	:	01.03.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Shakun Singla d/o Sh.Ramesh Singla r/o H.No.22,Sector 16-A,Chandigarh through her father and general power of attorney Sh.Ramesh Singla.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Air India Ltd., Airlines House, 113, Gurdwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director.

 

2.     Air India Ltd., Sardar Vallabh Bhai International  Airport, Ahmedabad, Gujarat through its Station Manager.

…. Opposite Parties.

3.     Seven Continet Travels, SCO No.96-97, Cabin No.9-10, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2nd Address:

SCO No.100/101, Cabin No.306, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh

... Proforma Opposite Party

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by

                Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant

                Sh.Sunil K. Shore, Adv. for OPs No.1 and 2.

                None for OP No.3.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant has filed the present complaint through his father Sh.Ramesh Singla.  According to the complainant, she has to attend an assignment/seminar in Ahmedabad, Gujarat from 08.12.2015 to 22.12.2015 as such the tickets were got booked from OP No.3 on 06.11.2015 by her father for Vancouver to  London, London to Delhi and Delhi to Ahmedabad and return by paying Rs.1,22,500/-. She started her journey on 05.12.2015 by Flight No.AI7318 operated by Air Canada from Vancouver to London and the next flight to Delhi AI-116 was boarded and further on 07.12.2017 flight to Ahmedabad AI-19 was boarded from Delhi at 05:00 A.M. According to the complainant, she was given Tag No.466003 & 466004 when she reached at Ahmedabad Airport and waited for her luggage but the same did not arrive on the belt and she was asked to mention the address in the property irregularity report so that the luggage could be delivered afterwards as the same was not traceable at that moment. It has further been averred that the luggage tag No.466004 was delivered on 10.12.2015 but another luggage Tag No.466003 containing laptop, charger, laptop bag, Logitech mouse, portable charger, apple ipad charger, lee cooper sun glasses, jewellery, wind jacket, toys, notes diary regarding studies, alcohol, microsoft charger etc., worth Rs.88,700/- was not delivered to her and, therefore, she wrote an e-mail dated 19.12.2015 in this regard to OP No.2.  It has further been averred that the complaint was forwarded to OP No.2 by Airport Authority of India vide letter dated 06.01.2016 but till date, the luggage has not been handed over. According to the complainant, it was the duty of the Airlines to ensure safety of the luggage of the passengers travelling in the aircrafts. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement,  OPs No.1 and 2  have pleaded that as per the norms of airlines, the passengers were not required to carry the valuable/expensive items in the luggage given to the airlines and rather the passengers are required to carry the expensive items, if any, in their hand bag which will be in their custody only.  If a passenger still carries the expensive items in the luggage given to the airlines and in the event of misplacing/missing of the same, the airlines are not liable for such loss. It has further been pleaded that in the present case, a passenger can carry along with maximum luggage upto 23 kg as free luggage and in the case of theft  or missing of the luggage, the passenger is entitled to $20 per kg. and in the present case, the complainant is entitled to entitled to $20 per kg upto maximum of 23 kg of missing luggage. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In their written statement, OP No.3 has admitted that the tickets were booked through it and that it has no role in any manner on account of luggage loss.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant has not claimed any relief against it. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OPs No.1 and 2 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         The case of the complainant is that the baggage in question was containing valuable items i.e. laptop, laptop charger, laptop bag, Logitech mouse, portable charger, apple ipad charger, lee cooper sun glasses, jewellery, wind jacket, toys, notes diary regarding studies, alcohol, microsoft charger etc. worth Rs.88,700/- and as such OPs No.1 and 2 are liable to indemnify her to the tune of Rs.88,700/- besides compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and litigation costs.  
7.         On the contrary, the case of the OPs that as per the norms of airlines, the passenger(s) was/were not required to carry the valuable/expensive items in the luggage given to the airlines and rather the passengers are required to carry the expensive items, if any, in their hand bags which will be in their custody only.  If a passenger still carries the expensive items in the luggage given to the airlines and in the event of misplacing/missing of the same, the airlines are not liable for such loss and a passenger could carry along with maximum luggage upto 23 kg as free luggage and in the case of theft  or missing of the luggage, the passenger is entitled to $20 per kg.
8.         It is an admitted fact that the baggage of the complainant was lost at the hands of the Airlines. No reason or explanation is forthcoming from the side of OPs No.1 and 2 for the loss of the baggage. It was the duty of OPs No.1 and 2 to ensure the safety of the baggage and to hand over the same to the complainant on her arrival and failure in this regard amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2.
9.         The complainant has claimed Rs.88,700/- as compensation on account of loss of baggage. But there is no evidence whatsoever that all the articles, which the complainant had mentioned in the complaint, were being carried in the missing baggage. Besides this, the complainant did not disclose the details of the articles at the time of entrusting the baggage to the airlines or paid any supplementary fare on this count.  A perusal of Annexures C-16 to C-18 would show that the complainant did purchase the items mentioned therein. However, the purchased items cannot be presumed to have been carried in the baggage that was lost in the absence of the complainant failure to disclose the details of the articles kept in the baggage and as such the complainant cannot be held entitled to the compensation as claimed in the complaint.
10.         In the written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 have themselves stated that the passenger is allowed to carry the luggage upto 23 kg free and in the case of theft of missing of the luggage, the passenger is entitled to $20 per kg and in the present case, the complainant is entitled to claim the compensation upto maximum of 23 kgs of missing luggage. In this view of the matter, the complainant is entitled to the compensation equivalent to 460$ i.e. 20$ x 23 kgs. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to be compensated on account of harassment and mental agony, which she has to suffer due to the loss of the baggage due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2.
11.         In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed qua OPs No.1 and 2 and they are directed as follows: -

1. to pay a sum equivalent to 460 US Dollars to the complainant on account of loss of baggage in question.
2. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

12.         This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which the amounts awarded at Para No.11(i) and (ii) i.e. [sum equivalent to 460 US Dollars + Rs.10,000) shall carry penal interest @9 % per annum from the date of the order till its actual payment besides litigation expenses.
13.         The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
14.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01.03.2019                                                            sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER