| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/290/19 Date of Institution:- 29.07.2019 Order Reserved on:- 20.03.2024 Date of Decision:- 05.11.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: VandanaRohatgi J-42, Gamma-II, Greater Noida Distt.GautamBudh Nagar, UP - 201308 .….. Complainant VERSUS Air India AI Baggage Services Terminal 3 Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi - 110037 .…..Opposite Party ORDER Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member - The Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant andher son were returning to Delhi from London on 31.03.2019 by OP Flight no.AI162. Annexures 1 & 2 are the copies of the boarding passes annexed with the complaint by the Complainant.
- When the Complainant landed at Indira Gandhi International Airport on 01.04.2019, she noticed that her checked-in luggage, a Samsonite travel suitcase, was severely damaged and alleged beyond repair despite the 'fragile' tag. The Complainant states that the body of the suitcase near the wheel was cracked, one wheel was dislodged and missing, the suitcase surface resting support was broken, and there were scratchesall along the wheel side of the suitcase, as mentioned in Annexure-3, which is the copy of the Damage Baggage Report.
- The Complainant informed the OP personnelat the Airport immediately about the damage. Her baggage was inspected, and spot photographs were taken of the missing wheel and cracked and broken suitcase. The Complainant was told she should wait for an email from the OP. She received an email dated 01.04.2019 from one Mr. Sanjeev, an executive of the OP, who advised the Complainant to claim damages from the Travel Insurance Company, which was refused by the Complainant's son. Annexure- 4 is a copy of the emails exchanged with the OP executive.
- The Complainant also informed the insurance company regarding her baggage loss via email (Annexure-5) on 01.04.2019 and later lodged her claim on 08.04.2019 (Annexure-8 & 9). Apollo Munich Health Insurance Co. Ltd. rejected her claim under Section 2 of the Exclusions given in the Terms and Conditions of the travel policy wherein no compensation is payable on any loss of checked-in luggage amounting to partial loss(Annexure-11) vide email dated 25.04.2019.
- Despite waiting when the OP did not resolve her grievance, the Complainant sent a reminder on 04.04.2019 (Annexure-6) to no avail.She then registered her grievance on the AIR SEVA website of the OP and was issued a grievance ID:LL862347 (Air India Baggage). The Complainant states that as of 17.05.2019,her complaint status is"Assigned"(Annexure-7).
- The Complainant sent another reminder via email on 18.04.2019 to the OP(Annexure-10) and several other complaints in the Directorate of Public Grievances (Annexure-12) and the DCDRC online portal (Annexure-14). After this, on 11.05.2019, the OP offered to compensate the Complainant to the tune of Rs.4500/- towards a full and final settlement, which was unacceptable to the Complainant (Annexure-15).
- The Complainant further states that she visited the authorised Samsonite service centre at Noida to ascertain the repair cost,but her bag was found to be beyond repair, as confirmed by the customer service head of Samsonite on 14.05.2019 via email (Annexure-16). She, thereafter, refused the OP's offer (Annexure-17) and filed the present complaint before this Forum, praying for directions of Rs.20,000/- towards the loss incurred by her, Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
- On notice, the OP filed a reply denying any deficiency in service. The OP states that the Complainant has not filed any receipts to show the cost of luggage/baggage or filed any proof to substantiate the price of the damaged luggage. The OP further states that the OP is not liable for any claimed losses on the Complainant's designer baggage as it was covered by travel insurance as per Annexure-R2,which isthe advisory issued by the OP.
- The Complainant has not made the insurance,i.e. Apollo Munich Health Insurance Company,from whom the Complainant took the travel insurance as a necessary party in the present case. Neither has the Complainant annexed the copy of the insurance policy. The OP claimed that the Complainant's baggage is around two years old; hence, her claim is exorbitant as the value of her baggage would have depreciated due to wear and tear. Also, the Complainant reported no loss of contents from the luggage. Hence, the complaint deserves dismissal.
- The Complainant filed a rejoinder and annexed the copy of travel insurance to corroborate her averment that her claim lodged with the insurance company was rejected under Special Exclusion (b)of section 2, which is related to "Total Loss of Checked-in Baggage", as below:
"special exclusions to section 2. -
- The Complainant also placed on record the policy of the OP Airline in terms of the Damage Baggage, which they have mentioned on their website."Efforts are made to get the damaged baggage repaired. If the baggage is damaged beyond repair, then a suitable replacement may be considered".The Complainant also filed her affidavit in evidence, reiterating the averments as made in her complaint. The OP filed the affidavit of Sh. Kiran Bhandari, Sr. Manager (Commercial) for the OP who, also repeated the statements as made in the reply filed by the OP.
- Both parties filed their written arguments, and we have heard the Ld. Counsel for the OP. The Complainant chose not to appear before this Commission despite several opportunities; hence the case was reserved for orders.
- Having thoughtfully considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused the documents filed by them to substantiate their respective testimonies, we find that the Complainant disembarked the OP Airline AI162 at Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport from London on 31.03.2019.
- At the time of receiving her checked-in luggage, the Complainant found that her baggage was severely damaged. She immediately contacted the OP executives at the Airport, who inspected her damaged bag. A Damage Baggage Report (Annexure- 3)was generated on 31.03.2019 by the OP, which clarified the damage as observed by them:-
Damage Detail 01-Bott/Foot/wheels Baggage Detail 01-one wheel missing/second wheel damaged - The Complainant received a mail from the OP asking her to claim the loss from her Travel Insurance Company on 01.04.2019, which the Complainant did. However, vide email dated 25.04.2019, the Complainant received a rejection of her claim from her Travel Insurance under section 2 Exclusion clause (b), which stated that the insurance company was not liable for any loss of checked-in baggage amounting topartial loss or not amounting to a permanent loss. The Complainant has annexed the email copy as (Annexure- 11).
- Thereafter, the Complainant again approached the OP via a reminder letter dated 18.04.2019 to take action on her claim. After which the OP vide email dated 11.05.2019 (Annexure-15)offered a full and final settlement of Rs.4500/- towards the Complainant's damaged suitcase, which the Complainant rejected and preferred this complaint as a last recourse.
- The OP contested the complaint, stating that the Complainant's suitcase was a designer bag, and hence the OP, as per advisory (Annexure-R2),always urged the passengers to be covered by travel Insurance, which the Complainant had taken. Thus, her claim was to be settled by the Travel Insurance Company and not by them. Also,the Complainant had exaggerated the damage of her two-year-old suitcase in light of the "Damage Report".
- In our view, it is an undisputed fact that the Complainant's Samsonite luggage was damaged by the OP while loading/unloading or handling despite a fragile tag. Hence, deficient service is undeniable on the part of the OP. The question that remains is about the monetary liability towards the same.
- The Complainant has placed on record an email dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure-E11)from Sh. Ravi Bhamre, Head Customer Case and Soft Side Quality of the Samsonite company, the manufacturer of her damaged bag as below:
"Dear Sir, Our store team has investigated your bag. The same seems to be out of warranty and is beyond any repairs and replacement". This email clarifies that the Complainant's Samsonite bag was out of warranty, which means that the Complainant's suitcase was at least one year old, as the minimum warranty for the products is at least one year. The Complainant has not whispered or mentioned even once as to which year she purchased her suitcase for reasons best known to her, and hence, she cannot claim the price of a new suitcase after having used the suitcase for one year at least. - In light of this fact, we feel that the ends of justice shall be adequatelyserved if the OP, who was ready to compensate the Complainant for the damaged bag vide their email dated 11.05.2019, paid a lump sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of the damamged bag and compensation to the Complainant for the mental agony and harassment she faced due to their deficient service along with Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 05.11.2024.
| |
