Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1481/2016

Astha Pansari w/o Rohit Agarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo Airliance through Authorized Representative/Terminal Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Umesh Nagpal

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:1481/2016

 

Astha Pansari w/o Rohit Agarwal r/o A 376 Triveni Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur At present r/o 16/3/4 Round Tank Lane, Malik Phatak, Hawrah Calcutta.

Vs.

Indigo Airlines, Jaipur International Airport Terminal -2, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 12.12.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Umesh Nagpal counsel for the appellant

Mr.Shashank Agarwal counsel for the respondents

 

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

 

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd dated 24.10.2016 whereby the complaint is dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that she travelled on 19.2.2010 from Indigo Flight No. 6 E 207 from Jaipur to Calcutta. She booked five bags with the airlines but at the Calcutta airport one bag was found missing which is deficiency on the part of the respondent hence the claim should have been allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that his liability is only upto Rs. 3000/- which has been paid to the complainant. Hence, no claim is maintainable.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant appellant travelled with the respondent airlines and her one bag was found missing at the Calcutta airport.

 

3

 

The contention of the respondent is that his liability is limited only to the extent of Rs. 3000/- which were paid to the complainant appellant.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that in terms and conditions it has been mentioned that the liability of Indigo airlines is limited to Rs. 3000/- but counsel for the respondent could not show any rational for the above condition. It is more than clear that one bag was booked with the respondent having eleven sarees and other outfits of value of Rs. 1,62,000/- and the terms and conditions of the respondent clearly contain that the airlines is not liable for valuable and precious items like camera, jewelery, money, electronics etc. but here in the present case only clothes were carried in the baggage and commonly it can be noted that when 20 kg. checked baggage was allowed to the customer as per Checked and Cabin Baggage Rules it was obvious for the customer to carry clothes in the checked bag which was found missing and it was deficiency on the part of the respondents.

 

The complainant appellant has submitted the bills of

 

4

 

clothes as Ex. 6 to 16 which clearly represents the value of the goods.

 

The other contention of the respondent is that bag was also containing one diamond ring which should have been carried in the cabin baggage and counsel for the appellant has very fairly conceded the same.

 

The respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2554/2008 Sahara Airlines Vs. Dr. Jayant Rath where on the facts of the case rule 25 of the Air Carriage Act was not found applicable but here in the present case loss is evident and when bag was found missing it can very well be concluded tht loss was resulted from an act or omission of the carrier and no evidence has been submitted by the respondent to show that he took proper care to handle the baggage.

 

The other contention of the respondent is that Rs. 3000/- has already been paid to the appellant hence, complaint is not maintainable but counsel for the appellant has rightly

 

5

 

submitted that cheque of HDFC Bank which was sent to him has not been encashed yet and the complainant has not accepted the money. This contention could not be rebutted by the respondent by showing the payment of Rs. 3000/- and further more the counsel for the respondent is not ready to state at bar that Rs. 3000/- were paid to the complainant.

 

Hence, in view of the above when the bag has been lost during transit the deficiency on the part of the respondent is established and the counsel for the complainant has also pointed out that the complainant get married only on 16.2.2010 and after marriage she was travelling first time to her matrimonial home on 19.2.2010 and her clothes which were given to her during marriage were lost due to negligence of the respondent.

 

In view of the above , the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 24.10.2016 is set aside. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 1,62,000/- cost of the goods, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of proceedings. The order be complied within one month

 

6

 

failing which the complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% on the above amount.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm