MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 11.5.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 52 of 2010 vide which, it partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP No.1 to pay Rs.2600/- to the complainant, within 30 days, failing which, it was liable to pay penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 22.1.2010, till its payment, to him (complainant).

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant is engaged in the business of import and supply of Textile Machinery Accessories. The Textile Machinery Accessories are imported from Germany and China and supplied in different parts of India. The complainant got booked air ticket, from Delhi to Ahmedabad, and back from Mumbai to Chandigarh, from OP No.2 and paid an amount through cheque No.742518, Karnataka Bank, Sector 22, Chandigarh dated 8.12.2009. It was stated that the complainant was on his business as well as social tour, to attend business meetings, with his clients, and also to attend the marriage of his close one at Mumbai, after attending the business meetings at Ahmedabad. It was further stated that the complainant was having black coloured suitcase, with him, and the same was given Tag No.0000091761 and weighed 13 Kg. It was further stated that on arrival at Ahmedabad, the complainant’s suitcase was found missing and, as such, the  missing report was immediately lodged with the OPs, which assured that it would be traced within two hours but nobody contacted him (complainant). It was further stated that he made numerous calls to the OP’s office at Ahmedabad to know whether the suitcase was traced, but in vain. The OP’s staff misbehaved with the complainant over phone. The complainant again went to the airport personally to enquire about the missing suitcase, as it was containing expensive clothes, one flat belt, which was imported from Germany, and the most valuable thing was his business diary. The staff of the OPs estimated the loss at Rs.20,000/- only whereas it was much more than that. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.12.2009 through Regd. AD to the OPs but no reply was received by him.   It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by OP No.1, wherein, it admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the District Forum at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as according to the conditions of Carriage of IndiGo, “all disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts of Delhi only”.  It was admitted that the OP No.1 sent several All India tracers, to find out the suitcase, but was unsuccessful in tracing the same. Subsequently, a letter dated 21.12.2009, was sent to the complainant by OP No.1, communicating the loss of baggage and offering compensation of a sum of Rs.2600/- in conformity with IndiGo’s Conditions of Carriage but the same was not accepted by him. It was denied that the staff of the OP misbehaved with the complainant over the phone, or at any other time. It was admitted that the lost bag weighed 13 Kgs. It was denied that there were any expensive items, in the said suitcase. It was further stated that, as per the baggage Rules & Conditions of Carriage of IndiGo in case of lost baggage, IndiGo’s liability for any loss, delay or damage is limited to Rs.200/- per Kg. with a maximum of Rs.3,000/- only. It was further stated that as per the aforesaid conditions, which constitute a valid and binding contract between the complainant and the OP No.1, he was only entitled to a compensation of Rs.2600/-. It was further stated that the complainant did not disclose the contents of the lost baggage. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.         Short reply was filed by OP No.2, wherein, it was stated that it only issued the air tickets to the complainant and did not pursue the mishandled baggage cases with OP No.1. It was further stated that it was the responsibility of OP No.1 and not of OP No.2. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied.

5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.       The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.  

7.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal. 

8.         We have heard Sh.Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate for the appellant/complainant, Sh.Avijit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1, and Sh.R.S.Yadav, representative on behalf of respondent No.2, and, have perused the record, carefully.

9.         The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant filed written arguments wherein it was contended that the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant, as per the Carriage Rules of OP Airlines and awarded meagre amount of Rs.2600/- towards the lost suitcase/luggage weighing 13 Kg. against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. It was further contended that the learned District Forum failed to appreciate that a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardship, frustration and disappointment was caused to the complainant, due to deficiency, in service, on the part of OP Airlines. It was further contended that heavy compensation alongwith costs be granted to the appellant due to deficiency, in service on the part of OP No.1 Airlines.

10.       The learned Counsel for respondent/OP No.1, also filed written arguments wherein it was contended that the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It was further contended that, as per the Conditions of Carriage of IndiGo, which constitute a valid and binding contract, between the appellant and the OP, all disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Delhi only. It was further contended that the appellant failed to approach this Commission with clean hands and deliberately suppressed the material facts in the complaint as well as in the appeal with an intent to fabricate a cause of action against the answering OP. It was further contended that the PIR (Property Irregularity Report) specifically stated that the value of the contents of the baggage was quantified by the passenger and, therefore, the appellant having duly affixed his signature on the said PIR was clearly estopped from pleading to the contrary. It was further contended that in the absence of any record of missing goods, the appellant had no evidence to substantiate his claim, making it impossible to ascertain the true value of the same. It was further contended that as per the Conditions of Carriage of IndiGo, the appellant was entitled only to a compensation of Rs.2600/-. It was further contended that as per the Conditions of Carriage, passengers were advised to carry all valuables as hand baggage, and not as check-in baggage, and it was clarified that Airlines shall not be responsible for any damage etc. that may be caused to such baggage. It was further contended that the OP was not liable to pay any further compensation than the amount that was offered.

11.       The learned Counsel for the respondent/OP No.2 contended that it only issued the air tickets, to the complainant, and responsibility was with OP No.1.

12.            Admittedly, the suitcase/luggage weighing 13 Kg of the appellant/complainant, was lost during transit, when he was on board a flight from Delhi to Ahmedabad and the same could not be traced by the airlines i.e. respondent No.1/OP No.1. The learned District Forum, after holding OP No.1 deficient, in providing services, partly allowed the complaint, and directed OP No.1 to pay Rs.2600/-  @ Rs.200/- per Kg. according to the Checked and Cabin Baggage Rules of the OP Airlines, (Mark A). In our opinion, the learned District Forum rightly awarded a sum of Rs.2600/- for the loss, incurred by the complainant, as per the Carriage Rules because, at the time of check-in of the suitcase, the complainant did not declare the value of the goods, which he was supposed to do. In the absence of any declaration, regarding the value of the goods, the complainant was only entitled to compensation, to the tune of Rs.2600/- (13 Kgs. X 200 per Kg.) for the loss of baggage.

13.     The next question, that falls for consideration, is as to whether the complainant was entitled to compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment. Our answer to this question, is in affirmative. A lot of inconvenience and mental tension was caused to the complainant, as he went to Ahmedabad, on his business trip, and his sole purpose was defeated due to the loss of flat belt (textile machinery accessories) which was kept in the suitcase. Hence, he is entitled to some compensation, on account of mental agony, inconvenience and physical harassment, which, in terms of money, can be assessed at Rs.10,000/-.

14.     We do not find any force, in the argument, put forth by the learned Counsel for OP No.1, that the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The tickets were purchased from OP No.2 i.e. the agent of OP No.1 at Chandigarh. The condition of carriage of IndiGo that all disputes were subject to the jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi only, could not override the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Since, a part of cause of action accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh, the District Forum at Chandigarh, had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

15.     For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant, is partly allowed. The order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld, with the modification, referred to above. OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-  as compensation, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant, on account of its negligence alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.2500/-, to him (complainant). We further direct OP No.1 to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount (except costs) shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing this order, till realization.

16.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                         

18^th July, 2011.