Bangalore Urban


Tapan Rajan Das - Complainant(s)


Jethte Luggage Cliam Offcier - Opp.Party(s)

in Person

12 Aug 2008


Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1661/08

Tapan Rajan Das


Jethte Luggage Cliam Offcier






Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.


COMPLAINT FILED: 30.07.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 11th DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1661/2008 COMPLAINANT Tapan Ranjan Das,A 405, May Flower Gardens,C V Raman Nagar,Bangalore – 560 093.V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Jetlite Luggage Cliam Officer,(Bangalore and Jaipur)Jetlite Airlines Office,Bangalore International Airport, Devanahalli,Bangalore – 560 300.Advocate – Sri.B.Srinivas O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased 3 air tickets on 02.03.2008 from OP so as to travel from Bangalore to Jaipur to attend the marriage reception on 25.05.2008. On 25.05.2008 they took OP flight No.632 it left Bangalore at 8.00 am. While boarding the said flight they got checked their luggage. The said flight reached Jaipur at 11.45 am but to their utter shock and surprise the luggage which was checked in weighing nearly about 11 kg containing the party dresses was found missing. Immediately he lodged the complaint to the OP. It was informed to him that the luggage is unloaded at Ahmedabad. He was made to wait for arrival of the luggage right up to 9.30 pm though he was required to attend the reception by 7.00 pm. Ultimately the luggage was delivered to him by about 10.00 pm or so by the time he returned to reception hall, reception was over. So due to the carelessness and negligence of the OP, complainant and his family members did not participate in the said reception and prevented from wearing the ceremonial dress specially stitched for the occasion. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP after coming to know of the misplacement of the luggage of the complainant they made thorough search and immediately traced the said luggage and sent it to Jaipur on the very next flight through Indian Airlines IC-269. No such damages were caused to the said luggage. Complainant received the said luggage by about 7.30 pm or so, it was delivered to the given address. Under such circumstances other allegations of the complainant are all baseless. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Entire complaint is false and frivolous. Hence OP is entitled for the compensatory cost U/s.26 of the C.P Act. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased 3 air tickets so as to travel from Bangalore to Jaipur on 25.05.2008 from OP. It is also not at dispute that on 25.05.2008 he took OP flight No.632, which left Bangalore International Airport at 8.00 am. He got checked his luggage before boarding the flight having tag No.S2847619 weighing nearly about 11 kgs. The said flight reached Jaipur at 11.45 am at that time he noticed his luggage was missing. 7. It is contended by the complainant that himself and his family members went to marriage reception and for that they specially got stitched the dresses and those dresses were kept in the missing baggage. He immediately lodged the complaint to the OP office. OP replied that the said luggage was dropped at Ahmedabad and they will get it soon and asked him to contact them at 7.00 pm. Though he contacted the OP at 7.00 pm, there was no response. Again he was made to wait up to 9.30 pm. Ultimately he got the luggage at 10.00 pm and return back to the venue to attend the reception, by that time reception was over. Neither himself nor his family members were able to participate in the said reception and also they are prevented from wearing the said special dresses for the occasion. It is all because of the carelessness and negligence of the OP. 8. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The very defence of the OP clearly goes to show that inadvertently the said check in luggage of the complainant offloaded at Ahmedabad Airport. This admission is sufficient to hold that there is a carelessness, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Because of the negligence of the OP the complainant and his family members were unable to participate in the reception and unable to wear the said special dresses stitched for the occasion. OP has taken the incident very lightly. However OP says that the said missing baggage was traced and it was sent to Jaipur through Indian Airlines flight No.IC-269 and it is delivered to the complainant at about 7.30 pm. Admittedly complainant is expected to reach Jaipur with the said luggage at 11.45 AM. For no fault of his, complainant and his family members were deprived of the said dress for more than 8 hours. Again this is because of the negligence of the OP. 9. Of course complainant says that he collected or received it at 10.00 pm whereas OP says that it is delivered at 7.30 pm the so called person who delivered it is not examined by OP. One thing is clearly established that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances we find complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. OP admits that its staff by mistake offloaded the said luggage at Ahmedabad. When that is so, complainant deserves certain compensation though not Rs.1,00,000/-. In our considered view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 11th day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Vln*