BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  :  MEMBER

C.C. No. 315/2013 Filed on 20.07.2013

ORDER DATED: 03.07.2018

Complainant:

A.N. Rajeev, T.C 8/1264(2), Devi Nagar, DNRA-140, Kundamonkadavu, Thirumala Post, Thiruvananthapuram-695 006.

                                       (By Adv. V.C. Anil Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1. The Chairman & Managing Director, Air India Ltd., Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
2. The Manager, Customer Services, Air India Ltd., Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Station Manager, Air India, Air India Building, Museum Road, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 033.
4. The Airport Manager, Air India, New International Airport Terminal Building, Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram-695 024.

(By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)

This case having been heard on 29.05.2018, the Forum on 03.07.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

Complainant’s case is that complainant purchased an e-ticket of Air India bearing No. 0983960780885 on 22.05.2013 from the agent ODEPC with IATA No. 14337606 for his official air travel from Thiruvananthapuram to New Delhi on 02.06.2013.  The representative of the opposite parties at their check-in-counter at Terminal-2 of the Thiruvananthapuram airport on 2^nd June 2013 has issued the complainant both the boarding passes for his flight AI 968 from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai airport and also for his flight AI 430 from Chennai to New Delhi airport stating that the flight AI 968 is delayed and complainant may not get adequate time to re-check in at Chennai airport for his connection flight to New Delhi.  When complainant asked him whether he has to collect his chek-in baggage at Chennai he reaffirmed the complainant in the negative and asked him to quickly proceed at Chennai airport for boarding onward flight AI 430 without losing time as the flight AI 968 was delayed on that date.  Complainant was also assured that the opposite parties will take care of his baggage and see that it reached New Delhi in his flight along with him.  True to the words of representative of the opposite parties complainant got very little time of board the onward flight at Chennai, as the flight AI 968 was indeed delayed.  Believing the opposite parties completely as promised by them, complainant has proceeded to New Delhi via Chennai in flights AI 968 and AI 430 and reached New Delhi airport.  To his utter surprise and dismay complainant found his baggage believed to have been sent along with him as check-in baggage in flights AI 968 and AI 430 is missing and the baggage handling section of Air India confirmed his baggage as in AI 430 of 02.06.2013 one hour after he informed them of the incident.  They also informed the complainant that the baggage has been found out at Chennai and will reach New Delhi in the next flight and will be handed over to him in his total by 10.00 pm that day itself.  While filing the complaint complainant has briefed the officials that he has put all his belongings in his check-in baggage and complainant has with him nothing but the clothes which he was wearing.  Complainant also briefed them that his regular medicine and its prescription, toiletry including tooth brush and shaving set, cell phone charger, clothing, reading glasses, official papers and books and all other essential items are inside the baggage and he was incapacitated and cannot do without them.  Complainant also briefed them that (1) complainant is supposed to attend an important official programme on the next day at New Delhi and will be incapacitated to attend the same which will be chaired by head of his department without reading glass and officials papers and books as he has to do homework during that night.  Without the home work complainant will lose his confidence and will be ineffective in front of the top person of his department which will affect his official future.  (b) Complainant is an outpatient of the Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram and under regular medication for Neurological disease and pain emanating out of it.  Complainant’s medicine and its prescription are inside the baggage and he has to take it one hour before he sleeps otherwise it will break the continuous medication and put his health condition to worse entailing in severe pain, fatigue, stress and sleeplessness.  Complainant is not at all supposed to stop that medicine even for a day.  Further without the prescription complainant will not be able to purchase the medicine as it is a scheduled medicine sold only with prescriptions.  (c) Without clothes to change, toothbrush and paste to brush, shaving set to shave complainant will be in a state of uncleanliness, without dignity and self-respect which in turn will have a very bad effect on his morale, and will be seen in the public as a primitive human.  (d) Without the mobile charger complainant’s cell phone will go out of charge in few hours from then and his family back home will not be able to contact him and they will be anxious and stressful.  To this detailed narration of incapacitation and perils that the non-receipt of his baggage would put the complainant in unless it is received by that night, the Managers of the opposite parties named Rajesh and Vedprakash at Delhi airport assured him that they will certainly deliver his baggage in his hotel in the night itself as the baggage will be sent by the next flight from Chennai.  During the night of 02.06.2013 complainant had made several attempts contacting the baggage assistance centre of the opposite parties at New Delhi airport to get some information on his baggage but no concrete information as to when he will receive the baggage was forthcoming from them.  So he made efforts to purchase medicine and all his efforts went in vain as complainant did not have the prescription with him.  Complainant also made efforts to purchase some clothes and other items but failed to get them as all such shops were closed by that time in the night.  Opposite parties failed to deliver his baggage as promised and they did not bother to inform him of the position of the baggage.  The actions of the opposite parties have caused violation of complainant’s right as a consumer and have caused heavy loss and damages to the complainant and his family members.  Hence complainant approached this Forum for compensation under various heads. 

Notice sent to opposite parties.  Opposite parties 1 to 4 appeared and filed version.  As per the version the contention taken is that opposite parties take care of the passengers in good faith and in utmost good care.  If there is any complaint the opposite parties will be resolving it to the satisfaction of the passengers.  The inconvenience experienced by the complainant is due to his own fault and not adhering the directions given by the opposite parties.  The allegation of betraying and neglecting of basic services are utter falsehood.  There is no irreparable damage, loss of dignity and self esteem, huge mental tension, strain fatigue and agony, heavy damage to health and physical pain, degradation and physical loss caused to the complainant due to any fault of the opposite parties.  It is true that the complainant purchased an e-ticket to travel by opposite parties’ flight AI 968 on 02.06.2013 for the sector Trivandrum/Chennai scheduled departure from Trivandrum at 06.15 hrs.  It was an international flight coming from Sharjah.  Being an international flight there is customers check up and clearance which have to be undergone by all passengers of that flight.  Thereafter the journey was by AI 630 on 02.06.2013 for the sector Chennai/New Delhi scheduled departure from Chennai at 10.45 hrs.  Flight AI 968 on 02.06.2013 was delayed Ex Trivandrum due to late arrival of incoming aircraft from Sharjah by 1 Hr. 20 minutes.  The opposite parties counter staff had through checked in the above passenger up to New Delhi and informed the passenger that re-check is at Chennai.  It may take time at Chennai and so he was given boarding cards for both the sector i.e Trivandrum/Chennai and Chennai/New Delhi to avoid any delay at Chennai.  He had one checked in baggage and that was labeled through to Delhi under baggage tag No. DEL 452216.  Opposite parties counter staff had briefed the passenger that he has to identify his registered baggage at Chennai Customs, as AI 968 is an international flight from Sharjah and this was a normal customs procedure.  The passenger has not identified his checked in baggage at Chennai Customs and hence it was not cleared by customs.  AI 968 arrived at Chennai airport at 08.50 Hrs. and his onward flight to Delhi was at 1045 hrs and actually left at 1047 hrs.  When the opposite party received message from Delhi regarding non-receipt of his baggage, the opposite parties Chennai Airport Services cleared the baggage from customs after completing the formalities, forwarded the same by AI 539 Chennai/New Delhi, which arrived at New Delhi by 2120 hrs. and the baggage was handed over to the courier on the same night for an early delivery to the passenger at his hotel in Karol Bagh.  The courier delivered the baggage to the passenger at 8.30 am on 03.06.2013 at the hotel where the passenger stays.  The allegation that the opposite parties will take care of the baggage and see that it reaches New Delhi without customs clearance by the complainant is false.  There was sufficient time in Chennai airport to recheck the baggage.  It appears that the complainant has considered the entire flight as domestic and omitted to note that his journey from Trivandrum to Chennai was on an international flight.  The missing of the baggage was due to non-clearing of customs by the complainant.  It is true that since the opposite parties noted that the baggage did not reach at Delhi, they made all arrangements to transport the baggage at the earliest from Chennai to New Delhi and deliver it to the complainant where he was staying.  The details of the articles kept by the complainant in the baggage are not known to these opposite parties nor it was informed to the opposite parties by the complainant.  The purpose of complainant’s visit and his official programme is not known to the opposite parties and also the health details of the complainant.  Complainant could have retained and kept all important articles such as medicine with his cabin baggage.  All information were passed on to the complainant as and when required.  There was no promise to deliver the baggage before 10 pm of 02.06.2013.  But the opposite party assured the complainant to deliver the baggage at the earliest.  The delay in delivering the baggage was due to the fault of the complainant.  It may also be noted that even though the opposite parties had four other passengers to Delhi who travelled by the same flight from Trivandrum via Chennai.  But the opposite parties have not received any complaints regarding non-receipt of baggage from any of the other passengers because they have cleared the baggage before the customs authorities.  There was no promise to deliver the baggage before 10 pm of 02.06.2013.  But the opposite party assured the complainant to deliver the baggage at the earliest.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The instructions given to the passenger was not adhered by the complainant and hence he experienced the alleged difficulties for which he alone is responsible.  Opposite parties have made all possible efforts to transfer the baggage with utmost importance and without much delay.    

Issues:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Ext. P1 to P5 marked and examined as PW1.  PW1 cross examined by opposite parties. Opposite parties filed chief examination affidavit and examined as DW1.  DW1 cross examined by complainant.  The argument put forward by complainant is that in paragraph 3 of the version, the 3^rd opposite party admitted that they have a written alternative arrangements for those passengers of delay/rescheduled flights.  But in this case, the opposite parties completely failed to comply with the procedures to be followed in case of delayed flight services.  The opposite parties also failed to adduce evidence before this Forum to prove that they have complied with the said formalities to the complainant where the 3^rd opposite party admitted in their version that the flight No. AI 968 was delayed by 1 hr. 20 mts.  Paragraph 7 of the version filed by the 3^rd opposite party, it is very clearly admitted that the complainant’s baggage was not cleared by the customs at Chennai Airport without adducing any reliable evidence.  The 3^rd opposite party also not adduced any evidence showing that they had demanded the complainant to identify the complainant’s checked in baggage at Chennai airport.  So the stand taken by the 3^rd opposite party regarding this is unbelievable and struck down prima facie.  The reason for delay in clearing the complainant’s baggage is absolutely not true and correct. The 3^rd opposite party admitted that their Chennai customs cleared the complainant’s baggage on receipt of the message from Delhi and there is no whisper about the identification of baggage done by complainant before clearance.  The version also supports that on 02.06.2013 night, they handed over the baggage to the courier for delivery to the complainant is not true.  The 3^rd opposite party had not adduced any evidence to prove the same also.  The averments in the version with regard to delivery of lost baggage to the complainant on 03.06.2013 is true and the time of delivery is absolutely wrong.  The 3^rd opposite party had not adduced any evidence with regard to the time of delivery of the lost baggage hence it cannot be believed.  The assurance on the part of the opposite parties that the complainant’s baggage will be cleared by them and the complainant had to travel in Flight No. AI 430.  Since the opposite parties had committed great delay in clearing the complainant’s baggage at Chennai airport, they assured him that the baggage will reach at New Delhi in the very next flight and will be handed over to the complainant on 02.06.2013 at 10 pm.  It is also submitted that the complainant has followed the instructions given by the opposite parties and there was no delay or latches on his part in collecting the baggage. The baggage was handed over to the complainant by the 3^rd opposite party with exorbitant delay and burden is fully upon the opposite parties to compensate the complainant jointly and severally as prayed.  The argument put forward by opposite parties is that the complainant purchased an e-ticket to travel by their flight AI 968 on 02.06.2013 for the sector Trivandrum/Chennai scheduled departure from Trivandrum at 0615 hrs.  It was an international flight coming from Sharjah.  Being an international flight there is customs check up and clearance which have to be undergone by all passengers of that flight.  All the passengers were directed to identify their luggage and get customs clearance before proceed to flight No. AI 430 at Chennai airport.  Thereafter the journey was by AI 430 on 02.06.2013 for sector Chennai/New Delhi scheduled departure from Chennai at 10.45 hrs.  Flight AI 968 on 02.06.2013 was delayed Ex Trivandrum due to late arrival of incoming aircraft from Sharjah by 1 Hr. 20 Minutes.  The opposite parties’ counter staff had briefed the passenger that he has to identify his registered baggage at Chennai Customs, as AI 968 is an international flight from Sharjah and this was a normal customs procedure.  The whole trouble started since the complainant did not clear the luggage at Chennai airport.  The opposite party never agree to deliver the luggage within a particular time what they agreed was that the luggage will be delivered at the earliest.  But the passenger has not identified his checked in baggage at Chennai Customs and hence it was not cleared by customs.  AI 968 arrived at Chennai airport at 08.50 hrs and his onward flight to Delhi was at 10.45 hrs and actually left at 10.47 hrs.  When the opposite party received message from Delhi regarding non-receipt of his baggage, the opposite parties Chennai airport services cleared the baggage from customs, after completing the formalities, forwarded the same by AI 539 Chennai/New Delhi, which arrived at New Delhi by 21.20 hrs. and the baggage was handed over to the courier on the same night for an early delivery to the passenger at his hotel in Karol Bagh.  The courier delivered the baggage to the passenger at 8.30 am on 03.06.2013 at the hotel where the complainant stays.  The complainant alleged that the counter staff of the opposite parties has informed him that he need not recheck the baggage at Chennai airport and he can straight away proceed to AI 430 and the counter staff of the opposite parties will take care of the baggage and see that it reaches New Delhi without customs clearance by the complainant is utter falsehood.  What the counter staff said was that he need not wait for boarding pass in AI 430 as the staff has given both boarding pass at Trivandrum airport itself since AI 968 which was coming from Sharjah-Trivandrum-Chennai was delayed but at the same time he will have to identify his luggage at Chennai airport before the customs authorities this was because AI 968 was an international flight.  There was sufficient time in Chennai airport to recheck the baggage.  It appears that the complainant has considered the entire flight as domestic and omitted to note that his journey from Trivandrum to Chennai was on an international flight.  The missing of the baggage was due to non-clearing of customs by the complainant.  It is true that since the opposite parties noted that the baggage did not reach at Delhi, they made all arrangements to transport the baggage at the earliest from Chennai to New Delhi and delivery it to the complainant where he was staying.  The details of the articles kept by the complainant in the baggage are not known to this opposite parties nor it was informed to the opposite parties by complainant.  The purpose of complainant’s visit and his official programme is not known to this opposite parties and also the health details of the complainant.  Complainant could have retained and kept all important articles such as medicine within his cabin baggage.  All information were passed on to the complainant as and when required.  There was no promise to deliver the baggage before 10 pm on 02.06.2013.  But the opposite party assured the complainant to deliver the baggage at the earliest.  The delay in delivering the baggage was due to the fault of the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The instructions given to the passenger was not adhered by the complainant and hence he experienced the alleged difficulties for which he alone is responsible.  Opposite parties have given all possible efforts to transfer the baggage with utmost importance and without much delay.  So we are of the opinion that complainant being a frequent traveler by flights must know the customs clearance in an international flight.  Though complainant omitted to do so opposite parties have made efforts to deliver the baggage at New Delhi.  Being a frequent traveler complainant is bound to take medicines and urgent office files in the cabin bag which was not done.  We found no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties apart from the delay in getting the baggage which was not proved.  So we find that there is no merit in allowing the complaint.  Hence complaint dismissed without cost. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.    

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 3^rd day of July 2018.

        Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 315/2013

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - A.N. Rajeev

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of passenger e-ticket receipt

P2     - Copy of boarding pass

P3     - Copy of tag pasted on the check-in baggage

P4     - Copy of property irregularity report

P5     - Copy of prescription of medicine

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Gopakumar

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                                Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb