Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1634/2016

Chairman-cum-Managing Director Air India Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Ajay Singhal - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Kumar Mittal

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1634/2016

 

Air India Ltd., National Aviation Company Ltd., Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi.

Vs.

Dr.Ajay Singhal, 71, Laxman Colony, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 18.01.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Vikash Soni counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd dated 20.10.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant. The matter

2

 

has come upon application under section 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with 10 days delay. Looking to the facts mentioned in the application the delay is condoned.

 

The contention of the appellant is that there is no deficiency on the part of the appellant as the consumer has not put the tag on luggage. He was not authorized to carry samples in check in baggage and Rs. 1000/- has been paid to him for incidental charges as per their provisions. Hence, the appeal should have been admitted.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment .

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the luggage which was booked with the appellant have reached late to the destination i.e.on next day. Hence, deficiency on the part of the appellant is proved on the face of it as this fact has also been admitted by the respondent.

 

The first contention of the appellant is that tag was not put on luggage it was misplaced and could not reach to the

 

3

 

destination. This argument seems to be very unfortunate and against the policy of the appellant which has been placed on record as Anx. E wherein point no. 9.4.1 it has been stated as under:

 

“Upon delivery to Carrier of baggage to be checked Carrier shall take custody thereof and issue a baggage identification tag for each piece of checked baggage.”

 

Hence, in the light of above it was the duty of the appellant to put baggage identification tag for each piece of checked baggage.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that the respondent could not carry sample in the flight as per point no. 9.1.3 where it has been stated that the passenger shall not include in checked baggage...............samples but samples have not been defined and further more in the present case the sample of urine was allowed to check in and it was transported from Jaipur to Delhi. Hence, contention regarding condition no. 9.1.3 is now not available to the appellant and further more the appellant has relied upon condition no. 17.3 7 that they

 

4

 

are not responsible for the damage to the samples but admittedly this is not the case relating to damage to the samples. Hence, the appellant could not get any benefit out of these provisions and it was the duty of the appellant to not load the baggage which are forbidden on the flight which have not been done by the appellant and now they are taking shelter of the above condition which is not available to them.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that they have paid Rs.1000/- as compensation for which citizens charter has been submitted and for domestic flights condition is as under:

 

“ On domestic flights, if baggage is delivered the following day/ subsequently, 50% of the amount, towards purchase of casual/formal clothes like shirts,pants, night suits etc. may be reimbursed, subject to a maximum of INR 2000/-. This compensation is not payable when the passenger is returning to hi base station/home airport.”

 

A bare reading of this goes to show that airlines would reimburse maximum Rs.2000/- but without any plausible reason only Rs.1000/- has been paid to the customer which is further deficiency on the part of the appellant and this condition

 

5

 

could not ousted the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in view of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the provisions of this Act are in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and here in the present case the appellants have only referred citizens charter which is not law on the subject. Hence, he cannot get any benefit from the above payment.

 

The facts of the case clearly reveals that on 7.7.2014 respondent flied from Jaipur to Dharmshala through Delhi. Check in baggage was handed over to the airlines but after reaching Dharmshala the respondent has found that his baggage was not loaded from Delhi to Dharmshala and he received the baggage on next day i.e. on 8.7.2014. Hence, deficiency of the appellant is writ large and further the appellant has filed this meritless appeal. It is very unfortunate that Air India which is world wide airlines has preferred the appeal without merit which seems that this appeal has been filed with malicious intention just to harass the consumer.

 

Hence, there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and liable to be rejected with Rs.5000/- cost

 

6

 

which would be payable to the complainant respondent within one month from today and after that it will carry 9% interest. In above terms the appeal is not worth admission and dismissed in limine.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm