Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/33/2018

Manjula Wadhwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Jun 2018

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	33 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	19.01.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	18.06.2018

 

 

 

 

Manjula Wadhwa w/o Rakesh Wadhwa, resident of 1881/2, SAS Nagar 160059  

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Air India, Chandigarh through its Station Manager, Sector 34, and Airport Manager, Chandigarh Airport.

 

2]  Air India, Amausi Airport, Lucknow through its Station Manager and Airport Manager, Luc know.

 

 

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Complainant in person.

Sh.Sunil K. Sahorey, Adv. for the OPs

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                        The case of the complainant precisely is that she, on 2.11.2017, travelled through OP Airlines from Lucknow to Chandigarh through Flight No.AI 412(Lucknow to Delhi) and Flight No.AI 463 (Delhi to Chandigarh) while returning from an Official Training Programme.  It is averred that during the said journey, the complainant was having one Luggage of 10 Kgs weight.  It is also averred that the complainant was issued two boarding passes (Lucknow-Delhi, Delhi-Chandigarh) and the baggage tag/slip was affixed on the reverse of her boarding pass.  It is submitted that on reaching Chandigarh Airport, the complainant collected the baggage having the tag number and name of the complainant, from the conveyor belt, but on reaching home, when she opened the luggage, she was shocked to notice that it was not her luggage and belongs to some other passenger even though it carried her name.  It is also submitted that the complainant had to return to Chandigarh Airport to report the matter to the Manager about wrong tagging of her bag by their staff.  It is stated that the whole process took atleast 4 hours and only then the complainant was made free by the Airport Officers and as such the whole day of the complainant was wasted.  Thereafter, on 3.11.2017, the bag of some other lady passenger tagged wrongly in the complainant’s name was collected from her and the baggage of the complainant was received only on 5.11.2017 at her residence.  It is also stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to compensate her for the harassment and financial loss suffered by her due to their deficient act, buy they offered a meager amount of Rs.3200/- as compensation, which she refused. It is pleaded that due to said deficient act of the Opposite Parties, the complainant lost Rs.15,000/- lying in the pocket of the bag, suffered harassment mental tension, spent amount on to & fro taxi fare, apart from one day leave.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of the OPs as deficiency in service.

 

2]        The Opposite Parties have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that since the baggage of the complainant and that of another passenger on the same flight was identical being of the same make, size and colour, the baggage slip was mistakenly affixed on the baggage of another passenger and as soon as the complainant reported the matter to the Opposite Party, the same was rectified and her original baggage was made available to her at the earliest. It is submitted that as per the advisory of the airlines, which is also printed on the ticket itinerary receipt and also displayed at all the airports that all valuable items including cash to be carried in hand bag and not in the registered baggage to avoid any damage, loss or delay. Moreover, when the baggage, which was exchanged with another passenger, the contents of the baggage of the complainant on her advice was checked to her satisfaction i.e. at Jodhpur Airport while accepting the baggage from another passenger, as such the complainant is not entitled to any compensation for loss of articles or goods. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations of the complainant, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]        Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in their reply.

 

4]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]        We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]        The crux of the arguments submitted by both the parties and the record before us, reveals that the baggages of the complainant and that of another passenger on the same flight incidentally were identical being of the same make, size and colour and due to the negligence of the staff of the OPs wrong baggage slips got affixed on the said baggages, which resulted into immense harassment to the complainant.

 

7]        The perusal of the record further reveals that the OPs did nothing to compensate the complainant in monetary terms for the harassment and sufferance encountered by her due to sheer mistake/negligence of the staff of the OPs.  Being the custodian of handed over baggage, it is requisited from the concerned staff of Opposite Parties to be more vigilant and careful while affixing the baggage slips on the handed over baggages to avoid any untoward incident, which provenly the staff of Opposite Parties failed to.    

 

8]        It is evident on record that the complainant undertook all the troubles to handover the wrong baggage delivered to her by the Opposite Parties due to mistake/negligence of wrong tagging done by their officials at the given point of time. However, despite her sincere efforts she was not even considered for reasonable compensation for the harassment suffered  due to the mistake/negligence of the OPs.  In our concerted view, such negligence and in action of the OPs tantamounts to a definite case of gross deficiency in rendering proper service.

 

9]        The Opposite Parties in their defence highlighted that the complainant was not supposed to put any cash or valuable items in the baggage, as per the advisory of the airlines, which is also printed on the ticket itinerary receipt and also displayed at all the airports to the effect that all valuable items including cash to be carried in hand bag and not in the registered baggage to avoid any damage, loss or delay.  We must appreciate the stand of the complainant that she has not claimed the amount she alleged to have lost due to said mistake of putting cash/valuable in the baggage against the instructions.  However, at the same time, we are of the considered view that she is fully entitled for the compensation for the harassment she suffered on account of negligent affixing of wrong baggage slip as well as for gross deficiency in rendering proper service by the Opposite Parties, as discussed in the preceding paras.

 

10]       In view of the above discussion, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is proved. Therefore, complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Parties with direction to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental & physical harassment suffered by her due to deficient act of OPs, along with litigation cost of  Rs.5000/-.

          This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from above relief.

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

Announced

18^th June, 2018                                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER