Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/57

Jagdev Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar Monga

04 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

 C. C. No. :                   57 of 2018

 Date of Institution:       26.03.2018

 Date of Decision :           4.06.2019

 

Jagdev Raj Teria Advocate  son of Sham Lal, resident of  Mohalla Dodan, Street No.4, Near Gurudwara, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Air India Limited (Head Office) 113 Airlines House, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, Parliament Street Delhi.11001.
2. DTDC Courier and Cargo Head Office DTDC House No.3, Victoria Road, Bengluru, Karnatka, India.
3. DTDC Courier, Branch Office, Near Prachin Shiv Hanuman Mandir, Arra Market, Faridkot.

                                  .......Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh  Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                 Sh Ajit Singh Sekhon, Ld Counsel for  OP-1,

                  Sh Manpreet Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for  OP-2,

                  OP-3 Exparte.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

cc no.    57 of 2018

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs.25,000/-for loss of articles and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant alongwith his wife went to New Zealand to meet his son living there and after six months they returned India by booking a Flight No.A1301 of Air India Ltd from Sydney to New Delhi on 22.03.2016 alongwith two baggages containing clothings, other necessary articles like gifts, chocolates and Rs.6000/-in cash in small wallet. All these baggages were duly locked and taken into possession by OP-1 at the time of boarding plane at Sydney Airport. On reaching India on 22.03.2016, complainant and his wife requested the staff to give their baggages which they handed over to OP-1 while boarding the plane, but they did not bother about their requests and said that their baggages weighing 57 kg have been left at Sydney Airport and assured to send the same to complainant through courier at their residential address in Faridkot. On 28.03.2016 complainant received two baggages sent by OP-1 through OP-3. Complainant opened the same in the presence of delivery man and found that two gents jackets, two ladies jackets and one purse containing Rs.6000/- alongwith some gifts and chocolates was missing and even weight of baggages was reduced from 57 Kg to 51.90 kg and baggages of complainant were tampered. Complainant complained about the matter to OP-1 and even sent two e-mails dated 30.03.2016 and 21.04.2016 to OP-1 and requested them to compensate the loss caused to complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and in response to mails sent by

cc no.    57 of 2018

complainant, OPs asked complainant to send detail of articles lost. Complainant duly provided the same to Op-1 and also gave due note regarding this on delivery run sheet which clearly states that weight of baggages at the time giving delivery was only 51.900 Kg whereas at the time of handing over these to OP-1, weight of baggages was 57 Kg. Complainant made several requests to OPs to make good the loss caused to him due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, but all in vain. Said baggages of complainant contained costly clothings, gift articles and cash worth Rs.6,000/-and total loss of complainant is of  about Rs.25,000/-. Act of OPs in not compensating the complainant for loss caused to him amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.03.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                           OP-1 filed reply through counsel wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong, incorrect and exaggerated. It is complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. However, it is admitted that complainant reported regarding missing of his two bags to them. it is averred that complainant has not disclosed the company of connecting airline flight used by him, about its flight number, time of departure and name of airport. It is further averred that they have already advised all the passengers not to carry valuables like jewellery, encashable articles, negotiable papers and currency in their checked baggage and

cc no.    57 of 2018

they are not liable for any loss, damage or delay in the delivery fragile and perishable articles. As per their record, missing baggage was received on board A1 301 flight on 23^rd March weighing 56 kg against 57 kg in good condition and on 24^th March, they handed over the same to Ram Avtar agent of OP-2 of DTDC by AHL. Variance of  1 kg depends upon the weighing scale to scale and thus, there is no shortfall, when two luggage bags were handed over to OP-2. All the other allegations are denied being incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                           OP-2 also filed reply through counsel and admitted before the Forum that Op-3 handed over the said parcel to complainant and at the time of delivery, its weight was 51.900 kg and it was delivered to complainant in same condition as it was received from OP-1. The fact that parcel was of 51.900 kg, is described on the delivery run sheet issued DTDC and moreover, there is no privity of contract between complainant and answering OPs. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.      

6                                             Notice issued to OP-3 through Process Server was duly served, but after expiry of statutory period when no body appeared in the Forum on date fixed on behalf of OP-3 either in person or through counsel, then, vide order dated 23.05.2018, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.

7                                           Ld counsel for complainant tendered in  exparte evidence affidavit of complainant  Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-10  and then, closed the evidence.

 

cc no.    57 of 2018

8                                                        Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Niranjan Singh Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/9 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Tejinder Singh Ex OP-2/1 and closed the same.

9                                              We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the documents placed on record by respective parties.

10                                           Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant and his wife went to New Zealand to meet his son and after six months they returned India by booking a Flight No.A1301 of Air India Ltd from Sydney to New Delhi on 22.03.2016 alongwith two baggages containing clothings, other necessary articles like gifts, chocolates and Rs.6000/-in cash in small wallet. These baggages were duly locked and OP-1 took the same in possession at the time of boarding plane at Sydney Airport. On reaching India on 22.03.2016, complainant requested the staff to give baggages which he handed over to OP-1 while boarding the plane, but they did not bother about his requests and said that their baggages weighing 57 kg have been left at Sydney Airport and assured to send the same through courier in Faridkot. On 28.03.2016 complainant received two baggages through OP-3 and found two gents jackets, two ladies jackets and one purse containing Rs.6000/- alongwith some gifts and chocolates was missing and even weight of baggages was reduced from 57 Kg to 51.90 kg. Baggages were tampered. He complained about it to OP-1 and also sent two e-mails dated 30.03.2016 and 21.04.2016 to OP-1 with request to compensate the loss caused to him due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. After that, OPs asked

cc no.    57 of 2018

complainant to send detail of articles lost and complainant duly provided the same to Op-1 and also gave note regarding it on delivery run sheet which clearly states that weight of baggages at the time giving delivery was only 51.900 Kg whereas at the time of handing over these to OP-1, weight of baggages was 57 Kg.  Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, Ops have failed to compensate him for the loss occurred to him due to deficiency in service and negligence of OPs. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, OP-1 admitted before the Forum that complainant reported regarding missing of his two bags to them, but have denied all the allegations being incorrect and exaggerated and averred that they have already advised all the passengers to not to carry valuables like jewellery, encashable articles, negotiable papers and currency in their checked baggage and they are not liable for any loss, damage or delay in the delivery fragile and perishable articles.  Moreover, as per their record, missing baggage was received on board A1 301 flight on 23^rd March weighing 56 kg against 57 kg in good condition and on 24^th March, they handed over the same to Ram Avtar agent of OP-2 of DTDC by AHL. Variance of  1 kg depends upon the weighing scale to scale and thus, there is no shortfall, when two luggage bags were handed over to OP-2. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Stand taken by OP-2 is that Op-3 handed over the said parcel to complainant and at the time of delivery, its weight was 51.900 kg and it was delivered to complainant in same condition as it was received from OP-1. The fact that parcel was of 51.900 kg, is described on the delivery run sheet issued DTDC. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 

cc no.    57 of 2018

11                                     To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant brought our attention towards document Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 which are copies of e-mails dated 5.05.2016 and 1.10.2016 respectively sent by complainant to OP-1 wherein he has narrated his grievance regarding loss of his articles through deficiency in service and negligence of OPs. Ex C-4 is copy of ticket dated 22.03.2016 that further proves the version of complainant that he got booked air travel ticket for returning to India. Ex C-5 are copies of receipts issued by OP-1 in the name of complainant and his wife that clearly prove the fact that weight of two baggages of complainant was 57 kg. Ex C-6 is delivery run sheet issued by OP-3 to complainant, bare perusal of which clearly describes that weight of parcel containing two baggages of complainant was only 51 kg and 900 gms. Complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings and documents produced by complainant are fully authentic and are beyond any doubt. On the other hand, OPs have nothing to contradict the contentions of complainant. Ops did not do anything needful to redress the grievance of complainant and non payment of compensation by OPs for the articles lost by them  amounts to deficiency in service. OPs have been deficient in providing services to complainant and have also failed to take any action on complaint of complainant and in redressing his grievance.

12                                               We are fully convinced with the evidence and arguments advanced by ld counsel for the complainant. The complainant succeeds in proving his case, so the present complaint is hereby allowed against OP-1 and stands dismissed against OP-2 and OP-3. OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.20,000/-to complainant on account of price of lost articles and are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered

cc no.    57 of 2018

by him and for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 4.06.2019

                                       (Param Pal Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)  

                                       Member                                       President