BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.379 of 2017
Date of Instt. 06.10.2017
Date of Decision: 24.02.2020
H. S. Murthy, Head Sales & Marketing, Foodcoast International, A-234, Focal Point Extension, Jalandhar City.
..........Complainant
Versus
Spice Jet Ltd., 319- Udyog Vihar Phase-4 Gurgaon-16 (Haryana) Through its Chairman Cum Managing Director Sh. Ajay Singh
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Naveen Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OP exparte.
Order
Jyotsna (Member)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is working as Head Sales and Marketing with Foodcoast International, Focal Point Extension, Jalandhar City and used to contact the various Multinational Companies on behalf of the Foodcoast International for procuring the orders.
2. That the complainant booked his air ticket from the OP airlines for going to Chennai on business tour and got his ticket booked for 16.02.2017 vide Flight No.Spice Jet SG 555 departures 16.02.2017 @ 17.55 Hrs from Delhi Airport Arrival at Chennai Thursday 16.02.2017 @ 20.50 Hrs, Cabin Econmy Airlines. The complainant reached Delhi from Jalandhar on 16.02.2017 for taking his scheduled flight to Chennai. The airport authorities took over the bag containing the clothes/documents for making the delivery of the same at Chennai airport. The flight reached the airport in time, but the complainant was went to get a delivery of the bag at Chennai Airport and he came to know that his bag was not reached there and accordingly, he immediately contacted the concerned authority and make a complaint in writing, but after waiting for 2-3 hours, the airport authority asked the complainant to come back in the morning on 17th and when he again reached on 17th, the airport authority informed the complainant that his bag is not located and accordingly, thereafter complainant was required to attend an urgent meeting and therefore he purchased new clothes and then he received a telephone message on 20.02.2017 that his bag has been traced out and collect the same from Chennai Airport, but the complainant requested the calling person to send back the said bag at his residential address Jalandhar, being reason it is not possible for him to reach at Chennai for collecting the bag because he is busy in business tour. That the complainant reached Jalandhar on 01.03.2017, after completion of his business tour and came to know bag has been received at his Jalandhar address till 01.03.2017, thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice, but all remained in vain and the act and conduct of the OP is tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and whereby the complainant was also harassed, which gave cause of action to file the present complaint with the prayer that the OP be directed to make delivery of the bag luggage of the complainant at Jalandhar and further OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for harassment and also be directed to pay the cost of the newly purchased clothes by the complainant in Chennai of Rs.50,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, in response to the said notice, OP appeared and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands rather he has suppressed the material facts, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable because the complainant is trying to take benefit of his own wrong, misleads and malafide acts and further submitted that the complainant was well aware and conversant about the terms and conditions contained in the e-ticket, which states that the passengers are requested not to carry the electronic item including but not limited to power bank in their check-in luggage. The copy of the terms and conditions is annexed as Annexure-R-1, but despite that instructions, the complainant carried power bank in his luggage bag and the same was checked at Delhi Airport and due to that reason the bag was retained at Delhi Airport and the same was not reached its destination i.e. Chennai and as such, there is no fault and deficiency on the part of the OPs rather the luggage bag of the complainant was located on 20.02.2017 and accordingly, the complainant was found to get delivery of the luggage bag from the Chennai Airport, but the complainant did not turn up and as such, the complainant is himself at fault, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of tickets and travelling on the airplane of the OP is admitted and even the delivery of the luggage bag of the complainant at Chennai was not make available on the arrival of the said plane rather the same was located later on. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove their respective case, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents alongwith their respective pleadings.
5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant as none has appeared on behalf of the OP at the time of argument and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. Before proceeding further, we first of all, like to prefer the contradictory pleading of the complainant, in Para No.9, the complainant himself alleged that on 01.03.2017 when he reached at Jalandhar after completion of his business tour, he came to know the bag has been received at his Jalandhar residence till 01.03.2017, means the bag was already delivered in the house of the complainant prior to reaching of the complainant at Jalandhar, if so, then we find there is no negligence on the part of the OP because the complainant himself stated to the OP the bag be delivered at Jalandhar.
7. Further, the complainant make contradictory prayer, wherein alleged that the OP be directed to make delivery of the luggage bag at Jalandhar. So, we find that the complainant is sinking in two boats at one time. In the body of the complaint, he alleged that the bag was delivered at his residence Jalandhar and in the prayer clause, he claimed the delivery of the bag be made at Jalandhar. So, the contradictory plea of the complainant itself make the complaint is not maintainable.
8. Further, for the argument sake, if we accepted that the bag was not delivered at Jalandhar, even then the complainant himself floated the terms and conditions as envisaged on the e-tickets. Everyone have to aware about the terms and conditions, which are printed on the e-tickets, if any electronic article is debarred to carry in the check-in bag, then why the complainant put a power bank in his carry bag and due to that restricted article, the bag of the complainant was confined by the Delhi Airport Authority and due to the fault of the complainant, there was a delay for reaching the luggage bag of the complainant at Chennai, so we find there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the OPs.
9. Further, the complainant was very much in Chennai on 20.02.2017, when he received the call from the Chennai Airport Authority to collect the bag, but he did not go there to collect the bag, rather claiming that he asked the OP to send the bag at Jalandhar, but we find that the OPs are not bound to send the bag at Jalandhar, being reason the OPs are not at fault, if there is any direct fault on the part of the OP, then OPs are bound to deliver the luggage bag at the residence address of the passenger, but in this case, the fault is on the part of the complainant. So with these observations, we find that there are no substances in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant and moreover, the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
24.02.2020 Member President
