Punjab

StateCommission

A/179/2019

Air India Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

William John - Opp.Party(s)

Navpreet Singh

04 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,      PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

 

        Misc. Application No.585 of 2019

                   In/and

  First Appeal No.179 of 2019

                                               

                                                                                Date of institution  :     01.04.2019

                                                                  Date of Decision     :    04.04.2019

 

1. Air India Ltd., through its Managing Director, 502, Westend Mall, Chatrapati Shivaji Marg, Janak Puri, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058.
2. Air India, Head Office, Safdarjang Aiport, Aurobindo, Marg, New Delhi-110003.
3. Air India (H.O.) M.K. International Hotel, Amritsar, Punjab.

 

….Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

William John, S/o Rehmat Masih, R/o V.P.O. Gakhal, Tehsil & District-Jalandhar, Punjab.

                                            ……..Respondent /complainant.

 

Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 85 days in filing the appeal.

                             AND

First Appeal against the order dated 14.11.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.

 

Quorum:- 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President

              Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member

 Present:-

 

          For the appellants            :         Sh.Navpreet Singh, Advocate

 

JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL,  PRESIDENT  

          This appeal alongwith miscellaneous application for condoning the delay of 85 days in filing the appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, “District Forum”), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was partly accepted and OPs were directed to pay the cost of the article lying in the luggage i.e. Rs.1,21,100/- and further to pay compensation for causing mental harassment to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order.

Facts of Complaint

 

2.       Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had booked Air-ticket of Airline of the Opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’)  through E-Ticket bearing No.0989793835454 on 07.12.2015 for traveling from Amritsar to England via Delhi. He boarded Air India Flight No.A1-115 at 22:00 hours on 12.12.2015 from Amritsar to England (Heathrow) via New Delhi and reached England (Heathrow) Airport at 06:30 hours on 13.12.2015. On reaching at Heathrow Airport (UK), he could not find his bag in which the he carried gifts and clothes for his relatives. He filed a complaint with Air India Office at Heathrow Airport, England regarding missing of his bag. He regularly visited at Air India Office, Heathrow Airport, England, and made regular telephone calls in the Air India Office and even after reaching India also, but he did not receive his lost bag. He suffered a great loss and inconvenience as he did not receive his bag containing the gifts and clothes and other things. The detail of the lost goods in the luggage is as under:-

Sr. No.	Item	Cost in INR
1	Ladies Suits (Unstitched) 13x3500 each	Rs.45,500/-
2	Ladies Suits (3) (Stitched) 8000+3000+3500	Rs.14,500/-
3	Two Suits (Pent Coats) 16500+14000	Rs.30,500/-
4	Sweaters (3x 1500 each)	Rs.4500/-
5	Pants (3x1500 each)	Rs.4500/-
6	Shirts (5x2500 each)	Rs.12,500/-
7	Medicines.	Rs.2500/-
8	Misc.	Rs.2000/-
9	Suit case Cost	Rs.4600/-
	Total	Rs.1,21,100/-

 

The complainant kept on regularly confirming the status of his luggage from the airport authorities, but they kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other for the reasons best known to them. The above act of the airport authorities caused grave harassment and humiliation to him, which amounts to deficiency in service and caused mental and physical harassment and also caused financial loss to the complainant. When OPs did not hear the complainant despite number of visits and telephone calls, then he got issued a legal notice dated 30.03.2016 through his counsel, but no answer was given by them, which tantamount to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OPs. Hence this complaint for a direction to the OPs to pay the cost of the article lying in the luggage as per the detail given in the complaint and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.

Defence of the Opposite Parties

3.       Upon notice OPs filed their joint written statement and contested the complaint of the complainant by taking preliminary objections that neither there is any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After receiving the information of the alleged missing bag during the travel from Amritsar to England, the complainant was asked by Air India to submit copy of Irregularity Report, Tickets, Baggage Tag, Boarding Pass, Passport Copy/ID, vide Email dated 16.02.2016, but he did not comply with all the requirements. He filed the present complaint and the same is not maintainable against them. OPs further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because no cause of action arisen at Jalandhar and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, they admitted that the complainant got the Air-ticket from OPs for Amritsar to England via Delhi. Admittedly, the bag of the complainant was lost rather the OPs alleged that some documents were demanded from the complainant, but he failed to submit the same and further alleged that in case the bag of the complainant is not found, then the compensation has to be paid under the Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) as embodied in India for luggage liability limitations. The liability for checked missing luggage is limited according to the Article 17(2) of MC 99. The Air India London made their best efforts for searching the baggage and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant had unnecessarily filed the complaint at Jalandhar for the purpose extracting compensation. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

Finding of the District Forum

4.                Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, partly accepted the complaint in the terms referred above. Hence, this appeal by the OPs. Along with the appeal a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 85 days was filed.

Misc. Application No.585 of 2019

Grounds for Condonation of Delay

5.                 Brief facts, as averred in the application, are that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to the fact that the District Forum decided the complaint on 14.11.2018, thereafter certified copy of the order was applied on 04.12.2018, which was delivered on 06.12.2018. Thereafter, the case file was sent to appellant’s Head Office at Delhi for the opinion in the matter for filing the appeal. After collecting the brief from earlier counsel, the same was handed over to the present counsel. The present counsel came to know that in this process the delay of 85 days has been occurred in filing the present appeal.  It was stated that appellants are left with no other efficacious alternate remedy than to approach this Commission. The delay has occurred due to the abovesaid reasons, which is neither willful nor intentional. It was prayed that the application be accepted and the delay in filing the present appeal be condoned, in the interest of justice.

Contentions of the Applicants

6.                 We have heard learned counsel for the applicants/appellants and have gone through the application/appeal file carefully.

7.                 Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants vehemently contended that the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor intentional, but due to the reason narrated above. It is averred that as the delay occurred due to the circumstances mentioned above, which is not intentional delay on the part of the applicants/appellants, rather, happened due to bonafide reasons and prayed that the same may be condoned and the appeal deserves to be admitted to be decided on merits.

8.                 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants.

9.                The present appeal has been filed, along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the huge delay of 85 days in filing the appeal. However, no cogent reasons and grounds have come forward to explain the huge delay of 85 days in filing the appeal. There is also no explanation as to what action was taken upon the case after receiving the certified copy of the order on 06.12.2018. Therefore, no explanation is given for the lapse of  85 days in filing the appeal, which is already delayed by much long time. Chain of sequence of events, which caused the huge delay of 85 days in filing the appeal, has not been described in order to co-relate the various events which allegedly took place from time to time. Even the details of the dealing assistant and any explanation for not putting the file has been brought on the record. The application has been filed in a casual manner, without disclosing the detailed explanation about the delay. The applicant has adopted a careless and casual approach in filing the application. The law is settled that the delay can be condoned when it has been properly explained, but the delay due to casual approach cannot be condoned, at the asking of the applicant.

10.               It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority”, 2011 (14) SCC 578 that while deciding an application for condonation of delay in the cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing the appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated petitions are to be entertained.

11.               Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others”, 2008(3) The Punjab Law Reporter-455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-

“It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence”.

12.               The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By LRs. Vs State of A.P. & Others”, 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC), after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para-26(relevant portion) observed as under:-

“Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued   to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly”.

13.               Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Oriental Arora Chemical Industries Limited Vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation”, (2010) 5 SCC-459 observed as follows:-

“We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time”.

14.               Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case reported as “Union of India & Ors. Vs Hari Singh “, 2009(4) RCR (Civil)-654, declined to condone the delay for taking the matter in casual manner. In Para-7, it was observed as follows:-

“Even otherwise, no explanation is forthcoming from 15.09.2004 to 18.01.2005 for not filing the appeal. The pleadings in application itself show that the matter was being taken in most casual manner, without bothering for the law of limitation”.

15.               In view of above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the delay has to be explained properly and sufficient cause for causing delay must be disclosed and the delay caused on account of dilatory tactics, inaction and casual approach cannot be condoned. In the present case, as discussed above, no valid reasons or the explanations have been given for condonation of the delay of 85 days and each day’s delay is required to be explained/justified. Thus, we do not find any ground to condone the huge delay of 85 days in filing the appeal.

16.               In view of our above discussion, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, being without any merit.

Main Case

17.               As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, appeal also stands dismissed, being barred by time.

18.               The appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Forum forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law. 

 

                             (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL)

                                                           PRESIDENT        

 

 

                                                        (KIRAN SIBAL)

                                                           MEMBER

 

April 04, 2019

Rupinder 2