Delhi

StateCommission

A/1038/2014

MANISH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jun 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:20.06.2019

 

 

First Appeal- 1038/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 19.09.2014 passed in Complainant Case No. 769/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi)

 

Manish Sharma,

S/o Sh. Rakesh Sharma,

House No.5,

Adarsh Nagar,

Kapurthala,

Punjab-144 601.

…..Appellant

 

Versus

Air India,

Registered Office at:

Air India Limited,

Air Line House,

Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi-110 001.

.….Respondent

 

First Appeal- 1077/2014

 

M/s. Air India Ltd.,

113, Gurdwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi-110 001.

…..Appellant

 

Versus

1.       Mr. Manish Sharma,

S/o Sh. Rakesh Sharma,

H.No.5, Adarsh Nagar,

Kapurthala, Punjab-144 601.

 

2.       Airport Authority of India (AAI),

Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,

Aurbindo Marg,

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi-110 003.

 

3.     Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. (DIAL),

        Terminal 3, New Udaan Bhawan,

        International Terminal, IGI Airport,

        New Delhi-110 037.                         .….Respondents

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. Both these appeals arise out of one order dated 06.08.2014 passed in CC No.769/2012 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) as such are taken up together.
2. Appeal No.1038/2014 is filed by the complainant and Appeal No.1077/2014 has been filed by the OP. 
3. By the aforesaid order, the Ld. District Forum has given following directions to OP:

“Hence deficiency in action and gross negligence on the part of OP1 is clearly established, whereby complainant a respectable citizen is made to suffer and run from one department to another without getting any respite.We hold that it is a fit case for punitive damages so that public sector unit shall be moved sensitive to difficulties faced by innocent passengers/consumers. We impose a punitive compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- out of which Rs.50,000/- to be paid in the Consumer Welfare Fund and Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for extreme mental agony, humiliation, inconveniences, loss of baggages due to the negligence, physical discomfort and litigation expenses.”

 

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as are arrayed in the complaint.
5. Briefly the facts are that complainant, Shri Manish Sharma had filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating therein that complainant and his wife had come from London to India by the flight of OP No.1 on 30.12.2010 at Indira Gandhi International Airport. The complainant had collected his baggage and belongings from the Baggage Reclaim Area (Belt No.13) and started for home. After travelling some distance, the complainant realised that one of his hand bag was missing.  The complainant on the very same evening reached Airport and approached to enquiry desk of OP No.1 located and upon enquiry he was suggested to check with OP No.1’s office at Terminal 2 in the morning.  The complainant approached the Lost Property (LP) office managed by GMR/DIAL at T3 arrival.  The matter was then reported to Delhi Police officials at Terminal 2 and requested them to arrange the Close Circuit Television Footing (hereinafter referred to as “CCTV footing”) from the cameras installed at IGI Airport in order to locate the position of bag. The on-duty officer of the Delhi Police deputed one of the officials along with a written request to the CCTV Control Room at G5 building. Upon viewing the CCTV footing of 30.12.2010 from 12.40 hrs to 14.00 hrs from different cameras inside the terminal, it was revealed that the bag of complainant was picked up by a Loader staff of OP No.1 at about 13.48 hrs and had put the same behind the pillar by Belt No.9 next to OP No.1’s Helpdesk. The said person was working with a private agency, namely, ‘Neha Agency’ having contract with OP-1 for loading and unloading facilities. His name was revealed as “Satyapal”. A formal complaint was registered on 31.12.2010 with SHO IGI Airport, however, NCR was registered on 06.01.2011.  The complainant kept on pursuing the matter with OP No.1 and also filed RTI but nothing came out. The OP No.1 shifted the blame to OP No.2 i.e. is Airport Authority of India who in turn placed all responsibility on Delhi International Airport i.e. OP No.3 which is looking after the general security and management of Airport.  The police had registered FIR on 25.03.2011.  The police had submitted untraced report which was accepted vide order dated 13.12.2012 passed by Ld. ACMM-01, Dwarka Courts. The complainant had alleged that OPs were deficient in rendering services to complainant and had prayed for refund of Rs.2,24,460/- towards loss of baggage and Rs.2,50,000/- for causing harassment to him.
6. In reply OP-1 had stated that it had been impleaded as party only on the basis that the person identified in the CCTV footage lifting the hand baggage of the complainant was engaged by it through M/s Neha Aviations for loading and unloading the baggage at the IGI Airport. It was stated that according to the transcript, one Mr. Satyapal was seen as keeping the hand baggage near Belt No.9 in the baggage reclaim hall. It was stated that however, the CCTV footage did not show as to who took the hand baggage of the complainant after it was left at aforesaid place. It was stated that present is a matter of detail evidence and could not be tried in a summary manner by Consumer Forum.  It was further stated that the matter was relating to theft of hand baggage from the premises of Indira Gandhi International Airport Terminal-3, Delhi. The same was falling under the purview of the Airport Authority of India/Delhi International Airport Limited i.e. OP No.2 and OP No.3. It was also stated that the investigation could not be properly conducted as Mr. Satyapal was not reporting for work since 22.02.2011. OP No.1 further placed the accountability of complainant’s lost property on OP No.2. 
7. OP No.2 & OP No.3 also filed separate reply and opposed the complaint.
8. Parties filed evidence by way of their respective affidavits. Parties also filed written arguments.
9. Ld. District Forum heard the parties and considered the material on record including the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by Ld. ACMM-01, Dwarka Courts and held deficiency in service and gross negligence was established on the part of OP No.1 and imposed a punitive compensation of Rs.1 lac, out of which Rs.50,000/- was to be paid in the Consumer Welfare Fund and Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as has been stated above.
10. Both complainant and OP No.1 have challenged the impugned order by filing aforesaid two appeals.
11. Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 has contended that District Forum has wrongly held OP No.1 as guilty of negligence.  It is contended that the security of IGI Airport Terminal-3 is with Airport Authority of India (OP No.2) & Delhi International Airport Ltd. (OP No.3) and not with OP No.1.  It is further contended that handling of Hand Baggage, is the responsibility of passenger and no liability can be fixed upon OP No.1 if passenger loses their hand baggage at the airport. It is also contended that CCTV footage has not been appreciated properly.  It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has also challenged the quantum of compensation.
12. The complainant has challenged the impugned order by contending that District Forum has ignored the prayer of the complainant.  It is contended that the prayer was for refund of amount of Rs.2,24,460/- equivalent to the loss caused to complainant. It is contended that District Forum has not awarded the value of contents of items in the Hand Baggage though the same was specially prayed in the complaint. It is contended that Ld. District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- which is on very lower side.
13. We have heard Shri Rakesh Sharma, Attorney of complainant and counsel for OPs and perused the material on record.
14. There is no dispute of loss of Hand Baggage of complainant at the Airport on 30.12.2010. OP No.1 in evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Monica Thakkral, its Manager has also admitted that as per CCTV footage transcript, Mr. Satyapal was seen keeping the Hand Baggage of complainant near Belt No.9 in the Baggage Reclaim Hall at IGI Airport. It is also admitted by OP No.1 that Mr. Satyapal is an employee of Neha Aviations, a private agency hired by OP No.1 for loading and unloading the checked-in baggage at the Airport.  OP No.1 has tried to confuse the issue by contending that in the CCTV footage, there are 4-5 persons who seemed to have conspired to commit the theft of the hand baggage of the complainant. However, no evidence is led to substantiate the same. It is also not disputed that bag is not returned to complainant. Once the Hand Baggage was picked up by an employee of Neha agency whose services were engaged by OP No.1 for loading and unloading then prima facie the fault lies with OP No.1 in not returning the same to complainant.  The OP No.1 cannot shift burden on OP No. 2 and OP No.3 by alleging that they were responsible for the lost property.  Further in the untraced report filed by the police which is accepted vide order dated 13.12.2012 by Ld. ACMM-01, Dwarka Courts, it has been observed in the aforesaid order that the baggage was lost due to negligence on the part of OP No.1 or M/s. Neha Ground Handling Agency whom the Air India i.e. OP No.1 hired for the services.  It has also been observed that the loader Mr. Satyapal had handed over the bag to Mr. Praveen Kumar Seth, the Assistant Manger of OP No.1 who stated that there was no place to keep the bag in the warehouse. No explanation to aforesaid observation of Ld. ACMM-01, Dwarka Courts has been given by OP No.1 either before District Forum or before this Commission.
15. In these circumstances, it stands established that the loss of Hand Baggage was due to negligence on the part of OP-1.  We do not find any illegality in the order of the Ld. District Forum wherein deficiency in action and gross negligence on the part of OP No.1 is established.
16. The District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs.1 lac for the gross negligence on the part of OP No.1 out of which it is ordered that Rs.50,000/- is to be paid to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- to be paid in the Consumer Welfare Fund. 
17. It is contended on behalf of complainant that the compensation awarded is on very lower side.  It is contended that by passing the impugned order, Ld. District Forum has ignored the prayer of the complainant.  It is contended that prayer was for refund of amount of Rs.2,44,460/- towards the loss of baggage whereas District Forum has awarded only Rs.50,000/- which is on very lower side.  It is contended that the contents of lost baggage were approximately of GBP 2640.70 at the time of filing of complaint i.e. INR 2,24,460/-. The contents of baggage were purchased through online demand and payment vouchers were annexed with the complaint.  It is contended that at least compensation of aforesaid amount ought to have been awarded to complainant.
18. As regards the amount of compensation, we find that vouchers of purchased items are annexed by the complainant but there is nothing on record to show that the Hand Baggage was containing the alleged contents.  No proof is filed to substantiate the same. The exaggeration in the same can’t be ruled out. 
19. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that adequate compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to complainant. 
20. As regards the direction of Ld. District Forum to deposit Rs.50,000/-  in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the same. The OP No.1 shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- only. The same shall be paid to the complainant.
21. In view of above discussion, appeal of the OP No.1 i.e. FA-1077/2014 is partly accepted to the extent of award of compensation as is stated above. The appeal filed by the complainant i.e. FA-1038/2014 stands dismissed.
22. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge. Record of the District Forum be also sent forthwith. Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

         

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

•  

 

 

(Salma Noor)

•  

 

FATIMA