Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/84/2019

Gautam Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Jan 2020

ORDER

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

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	84 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	15.02.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	20.01.2020

 

 

 

 

1]  Gautam Dutt s/o Late Sh.S.K.Dutt

2]  Shiti Dutt w/o Sh.Gautam Dutt,

Both Resident of H.No.2163, Sector 21/C, Chandigarh 160022

             …..Complainants

Versus

Indigo Airlines, Corporate Office: Level 1, Tower –C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli- Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon 122002, through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorised Signatory

Registered office: Central Wind, Ground Floor, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, new Delhi 110001, through its Proprietor/Manager/ Authorised Signatory.

   ….. Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

                                        

 

Argued by :-

Mrs.Shiti Jain, Adv. for complainants

Sh.Amandeep Singh, Adv. for Opposite Party

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainants along with their kids travelled from Chandigarh to Pune via Banglore on 14.4.2018 at 10.45 AM through Indigo Airlines.  The PNR No. of the ticket is XKES4E, the Indigo Flight No.6E-491 was flight 1 from Chandigarh to Banglore and Indigo Flight No.6E-528 was flight 2 from Banglore to Pune.  The complainants booked the tickets Online from Chandigarh on 13.3.2018 (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  It is averred that five number of baggages were checked in at the check-in counter of Opposite Party by the complainants at Chandigarh Airport and were tagged for long distance travel, to be collected by complainants at final destination i.e. at Pune Airport.  It is averred that Four baggages were tagged in the name of Gautam Dutt and one bag was tagged in the name of Shiti Dutt.   It is submitted that due to some personal emergency, the complainant Gautam Dutt had to discontinue his travel from Bangalore to Pune and it was duly informed to staff of Opposite Party, but his ticket was not cancelled at any point during the travel.  It is also submitted that no baggage was taken off at Banglore Airport and all the five baggage(s) were to be collected at Pune Airport only. It is submitted that when the complainant No.2 Shiti Dutt reached Pune Airport at 6.30 PM and while collecting the luggage, she found that one black duffle bag was missing. This was informed to the OP Staff at Pune and Property Irregularity Report(PIR) was also filled at Pune Airport (Ann.C-3).  It is stated that the said missing baggage was containing some gifts which complainant had bought for the friends and relative in Pune, apart from clothes, shoes, shaving kit and essentials of the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant No.2 Shiti Jain kept on contacting the Opposite Party a number of times and after sending a mail to the Opposite Party as well as after much persuasion, the Opposite Party handed over the baggage to the complainant on the late night of 16.4.2018.  It is stated that in the absence of said missing bag the complainant had to purchase items from the market.  Further stated that the delayed delivery of bag caused a lot of inconvenience and monetary loss to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainants wrote a mail to the Opposite Party for compensating for the inconvenience caused to them and for the refund of amount spent on articles she had to buy from Pune, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case that complainants through their airlines travelled to Pune via Banglore from Chandigarh on the said date, admitted further that the complainants had checked in with 5 bags at Chandigarh Airport.  It is stated that upon the complainant’s arrival at Pune Airport, the complainant No.2 Shiti Jain approached the staff of InterGlobe Aviation Limited stating that one of the bag of the complainant is missing on the baggage carrousel at Pune Airport.  Accordingly, the staff of Opposite Party immediately sent tracer emails at all stations, who would have handled the baggage of the complainant.  Thereafter, the bag get located at Bengaluru Airport on 16.4.2018 and after identification process, the baggage was admittedly returned to the complainants at the place of residence of the complainants to their complete satisfaction and which had been accepted without any complaint/objection. It is submitted that admittedly the complainants had not made any required declaration for such alleged valuables at the time of check-in.  It is also submitted that the complainants are making false allegation of loss or inconvenience caused to them.  It is submitted that the complainants received their baggage and contents thereof of the baggage in safe condition, so they are not entitled for any compensation whatsoever as per the aviation terms & conditions. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, 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 reply filed by OP.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The matter is not disputed to the extent that complainants travelled through OP Airlines on 14.4.2018 from Chandigarh to Pune via Banglore.  It is also not disputed that five number of baggages were checked in at the check-in counter of the Opposite Party by the complainant at Chandigarh Airport while undertaking above said journey.  It is further not disputed that on arriving at the final destination i.e. Pune, the complainant received only four baggages out of five and the fifth baggage was delivered later on at the residence of the complainants at Pune after two days, after having been recovered on the complaint made of missing baggage.    

 

7]       It has been so submitted by the complainants that immense harassment has been suffered at the hands of Opposite Party, who failed to redress grievance of the complainants in time.  Further claimed that due to missing baggage, the complainants had to spent good amount for purchasing belongings and gift to be presented to the relatives at Pune.

 

8]       On the contrary, the Opposite Party submitted that they duly attended the complaint of the complainant.  It is contended that acting as per procedure, the missing baggage was located and delivered at the door steps of the complainants at Pune itself.  It has also been submitted that the missing baggage after being located was delivered to the complainants in safe condition and the allegation of the complainant about any damage caused to the said baggage is baseless and an afterthought.  Further submitted that Rule 22(2) of the Third Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which is based upon the Notification dated 17.1.2014, S.O. 142 (E), wherein the Govt. of India in exercise of powers conferred upon it by sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Carriage by Air Act, directed that with effect from date of its publication, Section 5 of the Carriage by air Act, 1972, and the Rules contained in Third Schedule to that Act shall apply to all carriage by air not being international carriage by air as defined in the said Third Schedule.  It is contended that the complainants did not make any such declaration regarding any damage occurred to any of the contents of the baggage while receiving the same and even otherwise the baggage was delivered to the complainant in safe condition, so the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation.  

 

9]       We have thoroughly gone through the entire documents & evidence on record and had not come across any of the provisions vide which the complainants are entitled for any compensation on account of delayed delivery of baggage.  At the same time, we do consider the harassment suffered by the complainants for delayed delivery of the baggage by the Opposite Party, which they, at the given point of time failed to handover i.e. on arrival at the final destination at Pune.  Definitely they failed to perform their duty of care diligently, which certainly caused immense harassment to the complainants. Had the Opposite Party promptly acted upon the complaint made at the time of arrival on 14^th April, 2018, the baggage could have been timely located, but the Opposite Party took nearly two days to work upon a minor complaint of missing baggage, which reflects their inefficiency and amounts to rendering deficient services to the complainants.  Therefore, certainly on account of deficient services, the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainants for the mental agony and harassment suffered by them. 

 

10]      In view of the above discussion and findings, the complaint is partly allowed against the Opposite Party with direction to the Opposite Party to pay to the complainants a composite amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation & litigation cost, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.5000/-.

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

Announced

20^th January, 2020                          

                                                                   Sd/-                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

         

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER