Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/65

Sri Chandan Datta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager Indigo Airlines and others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr A.L.Saha

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 65 of 2014

             Sri Chandan Dutta,
             S/O- Late Subodh Kr. Dutta,
             Battapukur, Agartala,
             District- West Tripura.            .........Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______
    
        
1. The Station Manager,
Indigo Airlines,
Narsinghar, Agartala,
District- West Tripura.

2. Indigo Customer Service,
Indigo Airlines, Nasinghar, 
Agartala, West Tripura.

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant             : Mr. A.L. Saha,
                      Mr. Joydeep Pal,
                      Mr. Kajal Nandi,
                        Mr. Bhabatosh Debnath and
                      Mr. Abheek Saha.
                      Advocates.
                       
For the Opposite Parties         : Mr. Navneet Anand,
                      Advocate.
                  
                  
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : -  07.09.15

J U D G M E N T     

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Chandan Dutta of Battapukur, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps namely, the Station Manager, Indigo Airlines, Agartala Airport and another over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the case record is that on 09.07.11 the complainant travelled from kolkata to Agartala by Indigo Airlines Flight No- 6 E 242. On arrival at Agartala airport, he was shocked to find that one of his checked-in baggages weighing to 12 kg with tag no. 000666733 was missing. Immediately, he lodged a complaint with the authority of the Indigo Airlines, Agartala Airport who issued a baggage irregularity report. It is alleged that the service representatives of the Indigo Airlines had taken his signature on the written complaint forcibly to give false details of the missing articles therein. The representatives of the O.P. Airlines assured him that the lost checked-in baggage would be delivered to him very soon but ultimately they failed to trace out the missing baggage. He made repeated contacts with the O.P. Airlines to know about the fate of the lost baggage but it evoked no response from them. Finding no other alternative, he served two legal notices upon the O.Ps, one on 03.11.11 and another on 07.03.14, but it yielded no results. The O.P. Airlines offered him Rs.2400/- as compensation towards loss of the baggage. But he refused to accept the same being inadequate as the lost baggage contained valuable articles like documents, clothes, dolls etc. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The complaint was contested by the O.Ps stating, interalia, that as per terms and conditions laid down in 'The Carriage By Air Act', 1972, the passengers can not carry valuables in their checked-in baggage and in case the passengers do so, they shall be doing so on their own risk and cost  without assuming any liability upon the carrier. As the complainant intentionally violated the terms and conditions stipulated in the Carriage Act, he is not entitled to compensation of  any amount. Further that, as per terms and conditions of Carriage, in case of lost baggage, the liability of the carrier is limited to Rs.200/- per kg with a maximum limit of Rs.3000/-. However, considering the weight of the lost baggage a sum of Rs.2400/- was remitted to the complainant as compensation but he refused to accept the same. It is denied that the O.P.-Airlines was deficient in rendering service to the complainant in any manner what so ever.

4.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents;
    Exhibit 1- Boarding pass dt. 09.07.11 of flight no. 6E 242,
    Exhibit 2- Baggage tag,
    Exhibit 3- One cash memo,
    Exhibit 4- Property Irregularity Report,
    Exhibit 5- Copy of G.D. Entry,
    Exhibit 6- Advocate's Notice dt. 03.11.11,
    Exhibit 7- Reply to the notice dt. 11.11.11,
    Exhibit 8- Second Advocate's Notice dt. 07.03.14.
    
5.        On the other hand, one Sri Navneet Anand, the authorized representative of the O.P. Airlines, has examined himself as O.P.W. 1. No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the O.Ps.        
FINDINGS:

6.        The point that would arise for consideration in this case is:
         (i) Whether the the O.P. Airlines was negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
        
7.        We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the O.P.-Airlines. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously.

There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant, while travelling from Kolkata to Agartala by Indigo Airlines flight no. 6E 242 on 09.07.11, one of his registered baggages was lost which has received support from Property Irregularities Report(Exhibit-4). It is also an admitted fact that the O.P. Airlines offered to pay a sum of Rs.2400/- as compensation towards loss of checked-in baggage.

9.        It appears from the  Property Irregularity Report that the value of the articles contained in the lost checked-in baggage was stated to be worth Rs.15000/-. The complainant in his pleadings as well as examination in chief by way of affidavit stated that the customers service representatives of the O.P. Airlines had taken his signature forcibly on a written complaint to put in false details of the missing articles therein. It is seen that the complainant had also lodged a written FIR with the O/C, Airport Police Station on 29.07.11 as to the loss of missing baggage. Nowhere in the said FIR it was alleged that the customer service representatives of the O.P.-Airlines obtained his signature forcibly in the Property Irregularity Report to give false details of the missing articles. A mere allegation is not sufficient to substantiate the plea. The complainant has to prove something more. The complainant has failed to establish his allegation by clear and credible evidence that the Property Irregularity Report was not filled up by himself and his signature was obtained therein forcibly.
10.    The complainant, in his pleadings as well as legal notices, issued to the O.Ps stated the value of the articles contained in the lost baggage as Rs.15,000/-.But the complainant, while giving evidence before this Forum, stated the value of articles contained in the lost baggage as Rs.45,000/-. Nowhere in his pleadings and legal notices the value of the articles contained in the lost baggage was stated to be as Rs.45,000/-.It is well settled that if any averment is made
 
beyond pleadings, it has to be ignored. In this back ground, we do not accept the contention of the complainant that the value of the articles contained in the lost baggage was Rs.45,000/-. 

11.          The complainant in his examination in chief by way of affidavit clearly stated that the lost baggage contained costly clothes, dolls etc. It is not clear to us how he assessed the value of the lost baggage as Rs.45,000/-. No documentary proof has been produced in this regard. It appears that the O.P. Airlines offered to pay Rs.2400/- to the complainant as compensation taking the weight of the lost baggage as 12 kg basing on the statement made by the complainant in the Property Irregularity Report which he refused to accept being inadequate. As per terms and conditions of 'The Carriage By Air Act, 1972', the liability of the carrier is limited to Rs.200/kg with a maximum limit of Rs.3000/-. The O.P. Airlines offered compensation to the complainant in line with the aforesaid rules. 

12.        The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission in the judgment passed in MS Emirates Airlines Vrs. Dr. Rakesh Chopra decided on 11th April, 2013 held that “We have also seen the terms and conditions regarding settlement of claims in case of lost luggage as also the relevant provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. There is, of course, no doubt that based on these provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 the Appellant Airlines had offered to pay the loss, which has been calculated as being 280 US Dollars since these claims are settled on the base of weight and not on the value of the goods that have been lost. The state Commission while taking note of this fact has directed the Appellant Airlines to pay compensation of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs for the deficiency in service as well as for harassment, agony and mental tension caused to the Respondent, which is admittedly not taken into account for settlement of such claims under the Carriage by Air Act,1972 as also the terms and conditions of the Appellant Airlines. We find substance in this finding of the State Commission. In the instant case, due to the negligence and deficiency in service, the Appellant Airlines who was entrusted with the safe custody and delivery of the passengers luggage admittedly failed to do so causing the Respondent, who is a well-known Oncologist, to undergo mental tension, harassment, loss of professional face, apart from the monetary loss. The consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted to give relief to consumers for deficiency  in service, unfair trade practice etc. by service providers, traders, manufacturers etc. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Consumer & Citizens Forum v. Karnataka Power Corporation [1994 (1) CPR 130] has   laid down that the provisions of this Act give the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws. In the instant case,  no doubt the Appellant Airlines had sought to settle the consumer's grievance purely in terms of the notional monetary loss suffered by him as per the relevant provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972. However, as discussed earlier, because  there was deficiency in service on the part of Appellant Airlines in losing and mishandling the Respondent's luggage, which caused him harassment, agony, mental tension and loss of professional face apart from monetary loss, he is entitled to compensation for this deficiency in service on Appellant's part as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Keeping in view these facts, the State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00 lakhs. We see no reason to disagree with the compensation awarded, which we feel is fully justified under the circumstances. ”
13.        The Delhi State Consumer Commission in case No- CC-85/1999 held that “the circumstance of not delivering baggage at all or short delivery or late delivery itself amounts to deficiency in service for which consumer is entitled for compensation.’’

14.        In our considered opinion, the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the above cited judgment is applicable in the present case.
        From the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been well proved that due to the negligence and deficiency in service the O.P. Airlines who was entrusted with the task of safe custody and delivery of the passengers' baggage admittedly failed to do so causing the complainant to undergo mental tension, harassment, apart from monetary loss, for which he is entitled to compensation.

15.        In the result therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. The O.P.-Airlines is directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment together with a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Three thousand) as costs of litigation. The O.P.-Airlines is directed to pay the said amount within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of judgment, failing which the amount payable to the complainant will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full. This  is in addition to Rs.2400/- offered by the O.P.-Airlines as settlement of the claim basing on the terms and conditions laid down by The Carriage by Air Act, 1972. 

16.                 A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.