Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/255/2023

IRA DOMUN - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India - Opp.Party(s)

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/255/2023
Date of Institution	:	12/5/2023
Date of Decision	:	4/12/2023

 

Ira Domun W/o Dr. Deepak Kumar R/o H. No.1208A, Doctors residence complex Gate 7 Sector 32, GMCH, Chandigarh.

 

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1.       Air India through its CEO, SCO 162-164, Sub City Centre, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Mrs. Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Daksh Prem Azad, Advocate for OP.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Ira Domun complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  on 25.12.2021 the complainant travelled to Goa from Chandigarh alongwith her mother  on Air India Flight and further travelled back from Goa to Delhi   in the same airlines by having flight of the same day. From Delhi to Chandigarh the  complainant boarded flight No.AI 443 on 26.12.2021 and the luggage of the complainant was booked straight to Chandigarh from Goa and it was transferred to Chandigarh through Air India flight No. 884  as is also clear from the copy of boarding pass and luggage ticket Annexure C-1.  However, on her arrival at Chandigarh, the complainant found that her new silver  grey bag (hereinafter referred to be subject bag) was in broken condition  and at that time Mr. Anil Sharma took notice of her complaint  and asked her to deliver the broken bag at their office in Sector 34 at the earliest possible time with the assurance that the damaged bag will be repaired or replaced. On the next day, the complainant handed over the subject hag in the office of OP. In the said bag three of the curio items worth Rs.9000/- were also found broken. The OP has not issued any receipt of the bag but assured that within a week they will sort out the problem. The cost of the bag is Rs.5999/- and it was new bag. After 15 days, the complainant went personally to know about the status of the subject bag and at that time more time was sought by the OP. Instead of replacing  or paying the value of the bag and curio stuff  the OP did not give any response to the complainant for more than six months. In this manner, the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and as a result of which the complainant sent a legal notice Annexure C-2 which was replied by the OP vide Annexure C-3 but with no result.  OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of   maintainability, cause of action, concealment of fact. On record it is denied that the complainant had visited the office of OP in fact  when the vendor informed the answering OP that the bag is behond repair  the answering OP offered new bag  and the complainant was asked to accept the same but it is the complainant who has not accepted the same by approaching the office of the answering OP. The answering OP is still ready to give new suitcase to the complainant regarding which the complainant was also informed through reply given by the answering OP. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. In the instant complaint the complainant has sought value of the bag to the tune of Rs.7999/- with  interest from the OP alongwith an amount of Rs.9000/- on account of damage caused to the curio  items which were inside the bag alongwith compensation and litigation cost.
   2.  So far as the case of the complainant that the subject bag was damaged during the transit from Goa to  Chandigarh  flight through the airlines of the OPs  is concerned, the same has not been even disputed by the OPs  in its reply to the legal notice.
   3. The case of the complainant is that she approached the OP to pay her the cost of the bag to the tune of
      Rs.5999/-  but the OP had failed to pay the same whereas it is the defence of the OP that in fact the complainant was asked to collect a new bag but she did not turn up to collect the same.  However, when it has come on record that the subject bag was damaged in the transit when the same was in the airlines of the OP from Goa to Chandigarh and the said fact has not been disputed by the OP, the,  deficiency in service on the part of the OP is writ large as the OP could not handover the subject bag to the complainant at Chandigarh  in safe condition.
   4. So far as the  claim of the complainant  in the complaint that OP be directed to pay Rs.7999/- as value of the bag is concerned,  the complainant herself has given in the legal notice Annexure C-2 as well as in para 6 of the complaint that the cost of the subject bag is Rs.5999/- thus, the complainant has wrongly claimed the value of the subject bag as Rs.7999/- and thus the complainant is only entitled to the tune of Rs.5999/- being the actual value of the subject bag.
   5. So far as case of the complainant that in the subject bag three curio items  worth Rs.9000/-  were found broken inside the bag is concerned, the complainant has failed to show any photograph of the said broken items or any invoice showing that the cost of the said broken articles was Rs.9000/-. Thus the complainant has failed to prove her case to this extent and as such she is not entitled for amount of Rs.9000/- as value of the curio items which has been claimed to be broken.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

 

1. to pay ₹5999/- to the complainant(s) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 26.12.2021 till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹2000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her/him/them;
3. to pay ₹2000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

5. This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/12/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member