ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for the deficiency in service in not handing over the checked in baggage at destination i.e. New Delhi thereby there is deficiency in service and to pay the cost of Rs.17,705/- being the travelling expenses and Rs.25,000/- as whole travel was a waste without the baggage and for Rs.10,00,000/- for causing mental agony, embarrassment and not attending dignified Government function and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant No.2 through complainant no.1 booked a ticket to go to Delhi on 05.12.2016 from Bangalore to New Delhi to attend a ceremony organized by the Govt. of India at Rasthrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi as he was a special invitee to attend scouts/guides/rovers/rangers and adult leaders award presentation ceremony as he represents complainant No.1. The ticket was booked on 03.12.2016 by paying Rs.8,584/- to New Delhi on 05.12.2016 go to and return journey was also booked with Air India by paying Rs.8,746/- to be performed on 06.12.2016.

3.     The flight to Delhi on 05.12.2016 of Indigo Airlines was to takeoff at 8 am. Since it is an event organized by the Government of India, as per the protocol, he has to attend the said event wearing the scout attire (uniform) which was kept packed in the baggage which was handed over as a check-in baggage to OP-2. Op2 also issued a boarding pass to board the flight. He reached Delhi airport at 10.30.am and awaited to collect his baggage at the carousal. He could not find out his checked in baggage and anxiously enquired airport authorities at New Delhi and he was asked to contact OP-2. On enquiry it was informed that his baggage was not loaded to the flight at the Bangalore itself and on further enquiry why the same was not loaded he was informed that the checked in baggage had a power bank and the same could not be loaded. 

4.     The fact of the power bank in the check-in baggage was not at all informed in Bangalore to the complainant No.2. Due to the non-delivery of the baggage at Delhi, he could not have the uniform to wear to attend the function which was to take place at 12 noon. He could not even purchase a readymade cloth of that time.  This made him to deprive to attend the dignified event representing the Government of Karnataka and lost an opportunity of life time and his whole purpose of visiting Delhi has gone a waste and besides, he has to face embarrassment and was put into mental agony and hardship. Even he was without access to his cloths, valuable, personal articles for two days till he flew back to Bangalore. 

5.     Afterwards, he was informed that the said baggage would be sent to New Delhi airport on the same evening i.e. 05.10.2017. He requested that he will be returning to Bangalore the next day and that he would collect the same in Bangalore only. He took the flight for return journey on 06.12.2017 and on enquiry he found that the said baggage was sent to Delhi. He became extremely frustrated  due to the negligent act of the OP.

6.     Due to which he had to miss the opportunity of a life time memorable function to visit the Rashtrapathi Bhavan and represent Government of Karnataka.  OP -2 never informed the complainant regarding not loading his checked in baggage, and did not inform him regarding the presence of the power bank in the checked in baggage. It could have been removed and handed to him to carry forwards in his hand baggage. As per the rules, if there are any prohibited items or restricted items found in the baggage, passengers are not allowed to be boarded. It is mandatory that x-ray screening to be done by the airport authorities prior to 15 to 20 minutes prior to the passengers boarding the flight.  The boarding gate closes 45 minutes prior to the time of departure.  The fact of restrictions to carry the power bank in check in baggage was not at all informed to him.  Hence he had to issue legal notice to the OP-1 and 2 seeking compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Op.1 and 2 refused to comply the demand made in the legal notice, whereas they issued a reply refusing and denying the allegations made against them.  Hence filed this complaint and prayed to allow the same.

7.     Upon the service of notice, OP-1 and 2 appeared before the commission through their advocate and filed version contending that the complainant by name Mahesh booked a ticket in their flight No.6E838 to travel on 05.12.2016 through make my trip on line portal by paying Rs.8,581/-. Complainant is bound by indigo conditions of carriage domestic (indigo COC) The conditions were made available to all the passengers who booked the ticket on online and through website and further contended that as per Article 10.1 of indigo COC, indigo reserves right to refuse carriage of such baggage or such items found in the baggage. Power banks are allowed only in hand baggages.  The baggage checked in will be screened multiple times upon the check-in. They are bound by rules and regulations of security as contemplated by DGCA at the concerned Airports. It has also right to search as per the regulatory authority directions. On 04.12.2016 at about 8 O’clock, complainant was informed by SMS through his registered mobile number that the power banks are permitted only in the hand baggage and not in the check in baggage.  It is mentioned there as:

“Dear IndiGo Customer – Get online or get in line. Web check-in now! Just carry a print of your boarding pass and drop your bags  at the bag drop counters or proceed straight to gates. Galaxy Note 7 and E-cigarettes are prohibited from carriage. Power banks are allowed only as hand baggage. Wish you a pleasant flight.”

8.     Inspite of it, still the complainant put the power bank in the checked in baggage and it is only due to his negligence and careless attitude towards direction given through SMS. Further he did not discloses keeping of power bank in the bag even at the check in counter.  Usually the check in officials seek information regarding the power bank in the check in baggage. Despite communicating the complainant not to keep the power bank in the baggage and also advertising and informing the passengers regarding the same,  complainant chose to carry power bank in the check in baggage, ignoring all the warnings.  During a mandatory screening by OP-4,  that the power bank was found in the check in baggage and hence the said baggage was not loaded to the flight. The staff members of Indigo have no discretionary power in relation the security issues of the air craft to load the baggage which contains the prohibited articles.  They also tried to contact the complainant through mobile but could not contact him as he had already boarded the flight. The staff members also tried to approach him personally so that he can be requested and accompanied to the security level of the airport in order to physical screening of the complainant baggage in order to remove the power bank. By the time, the staff members reached the boarding gate, complainant had already entered the aircraft. In view of the same, as per the rules and regulations they have acted diligently in not loading the baggage of the complainant which contained the power bank and hence there is no negligence on its part and prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

9.     OP-3 upon the service the notice informed this office that it is not a service provider and that the issue /dispute lies between the complainant and indigo airlines and requested this commission decide the case of the complainant as per existing and applicable law vide order sheet dated 16.01.2019.

10.   OP-4 filed the version contending that OP-4 is not a necessary party to the proceeding and no allegations has been made against it and there is no cause of action lying against it. Also there is no allegations of deficiency in service.  There is no direct connection of OP-4 with a complaint as complainant has not availed any of the services. OP 4 is a platform to OP-1 and 2 for providing the airline service the end customers. OP-4 neither directly deal with the passengers nor has contractual relationship with the passengers. It do not involve in the business activities and management decisions of OP-1 and 2. Only OP1 stated in the reply to the notice that during the screening of complainants checked in baggage, the airport authorities found a power bank in the baggage and the same was informed by OP.4 to OP1and 2 to ensure that such a baggage is not loaded on the flight. It has followed rule 23 of Prohibitions of carriage of certain goods Aircraft (security) Rules to 2011). The security at Kempegowda International Airport is entrusted to Central Industrial Security Force. The concerned security personal on detecting the power bank in the check-in baggage of the complainant duly informed OP-2 about the power bank and as per the rules and guidelines provided under the aircraft security Rules 2011, the bag was not loaded. It has denied having asked the complainant to collect the baggage from the airport. OP.2 only has intimated the complainant to collect baggage from its store/designated clock room. Denying all the other allegations prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.  

11.   In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

12.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 & 2:     IN THE NEGATIVE

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1 & 2:-

13.   On perusing the complaint, version,  documents, evidence filed by the both the parties, it becomes clear that, the complainant booked a ticket in order to go to New Delhi on 05.12.2016 by the flight that was being operated by OP-1 and 2. It is also admitted fact that the complainant handed over his bag to be loaded to the airport and checked in and entered the aircraft.  When he reached airport at Delhi, he could not find his baggage and hence he contacted OP.1 adn2  who informed him that his baggage was not loaded due to the power bank in the said baggage. The complainant has not denied that he had not kept the power bank in it. When such being the case acting under INDIGO COC OP-1 and 2 are bound by the rules and regulations regarding loading of the bag which contained prohibitory items to active the main object intention of security of the aircraft and air passengers. No risk can be taken at this end. 

14.   The complainant was informed through SMS on 04.12.2016 not to carry or place the power bank in the baggage given for check in. Inspite of it, complainant has kept the power bank and even did not inform the authorities which led to the situation. Therefore, the authorities did not load the baggage of the complainant to the flight for which he has to suffer without the required cloths and also uniform (scout uniform )( to attend the function organized in the Rashrapathi Bhavan New Delhi representing Karnataka state. Though it is a unique opportunity and golden opportunity in ones life time, due to the sheer negligence on the part of the complainant, he lost his baggage to be carried along with him which deprived him in attending the function for which he has to be blamed. 

15.   Following the rules in the strict sense keeping in mind the security of the aircraft and the air passengers, cannot be termed as deficiency in service and hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVE and in the result complainant is not entitle for any of the reliefs claimed and answer POINT NO.2 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVE. 

16.   Earlier this complaint was filed by Jungle lodge resorts limited by its managing director as complainant No.1 and afterwards it withdrew from the complainant and hence AN Mahesh the traveller became the complainant. OP-4 at the fag end of the proceedings of this complaint filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) to strike out oP.4 from the complaint by filing an affidavit accompanying the said IA. In view of our answers to the points raised for determination, we feel that no separate order on the IA is required. Hence we pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint as well as IA filed under Order I Rule 10(2) Read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure by OP-4 is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.

2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 26^th day of JULY 2022)

MEMBER         MEMBER       PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the ticket booked from Bangalore to Delhi  with OP’s airlines

Ex P2: Copy of the booking confirmation letter

Ex. P3 & P4: Copy of the baggage handing over boarding pass.

Ex P5: Copy of the Invitation from Rastrapathi Bhavan,

Ex P6: Copy of the Legal notice.

Ex P7: Copy of the Reply.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Anmol Sood, Legal Counsel of OPs

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act

Ex R2: Copy of the Authorization

Ex R3: Copy of the condition of carriage

Ex R4: Copy of the snapshot of official  records.

MEMBER         MEMBER       PRESIDENT

RAK*