The complainant Sri Manoj Mehrotra has filed this complaint petition against Apsara Travel Agency INDIGO Airlines Tilak Maidan Road in front of Adharsh nagar Muzaffarpur and two others (o.ps) to recover VIP Alfa Bag of his wife from o.ps and on failure compensation of Rs. 1,87,500/- and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
The brief, facts of the case is that the complainant had gone to Banglore from Patna on 21-07-2015 with his wife and son to attend marriage ceremony by airlines after purchasing ticket of the same. The further case is that during the course of
returning on 21-07-2015 from Banglore to Patna with his wife and son when they reached at Patna airport, out of 3 bags of the complainant’s wife and son, only two bags were provided by o.p no.-2 at Patna. The further case is that o.p no.-2 didn’t provide V.I.P Alfa dark Blue Colour Bag of the complainant’s wife to the complainant and asked that the same had been missed. The further case is that he provided receipt of missing bag at Patna airport and asked that as soon as the same recovered, he will provide the same after calling him on telephone but the o.ps didn’t return the bag. The further case is that aforesaid bag contains 5 valuable saries with blouse and petticoat , two sets samij Salwar and Duptta and neckless set of Rs. 1,50,000/- of his wife value of the clothes were Rs. 30,000/- and there was cosmetic of Rs. 5,000/- in the bag. The value of the bag was Rs. 2500/- total of Rs. 1,87,500/-
The complainant has annexed the following documents with the complaint petition – photocopies of Air Flight Security check annexure 1 to 3, photocopy of receipt for missing luggage annexure-4, photocopy of Important Notes annexure-5.
On issuance of notices, o.p no.1 didn’t appear before the forum so Ex. Party to proceed against o.p no.-1 vide order dated 09-07-2018/31-10-2018.
O.P. no. 2 & 3 appeared and filed their w.s. on 11-01-2018 with prayer to dismiss the complaint petition with cots. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear the present complaint in as much as the agreed terms and condition which govern air travel with Inter Globe Aviation Limited and according to terms
and conditions of same the courts of New Delhi shall settle all dispute arising out of or in connection with the said conditions of carriage.
The relevant provisions of the said terms and condition has been reproduced in the w.s. which as follows- “ 19 Governing law and dispute settlement mechanism - dispute settlement mechanism-
All disputes arising out of, or in connection with these conditions of carriage shall be settled by the court of Delhi, India, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the matters in relation to these conditions of carriage.” It has been further mentioned that the present complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint against a wrong entity in as much as the company which undertakes airline operations domestically in India as well as to certain internation destinations is registered under the corporate name of Inter Globe Aviation Limited. Therefore to the extent the present complaint has been filed against ‘Indigo Airlines’, it is defective and liable to be dismissed. A true Copy of certificate of incorporation of Inter Globe ;Aviation Limited has been annexed and marked as annexure-‘B’. It has been further mentioned that the wife of complainant, whose bag it was missed is not a party. It has been further mentioned that the son of complainant was also travelling under the same PNR who has also not been made a party. It has been further mentioned that complaint is devoid of any cause of action. Photocopy of indigo COC,
as applicable on the date of booking has been annexed as annexure-C., It has been further mentioned in the w.s. that in this case of loss of baggage the liability of Inter Globe Aviation is Ltd. to INR 350/kg. Subject to, a maximum ceiling of INR RS. 20,000/-. It has been further mentioned that Indigo assumed no liability for fragile or perishable articles. It has been further mentioned that indigo shall have no liability, whatsoever, for damage to articles not permitted to be contained in checked Baggage as per the provisions of the condition of carriage ( including without limitation, fragile, or perishable items, items having a special value, such as money, jewellery, precious metals, computers, personal electronic devices negotiable papers, camera, TV, securities, or other valuables, business documents, passports and other identification documents.) It has been further mentioned that as per Inter Globe Aviation Limited’s record, on 21-07-2017 a property Irregularity Report (PIR) was lodged in the name of one Mr. Anuj Mehrotra ( who has not been made a party to the present complaint) for one missing piece of baggage weighing 15 kilograms. On receipt of the said PIR, the staff of Inter Globe Aviation limited made best efforts to trace the said missing piece of baggage however, the same remained untraceable. A true copy of the PIR lodged by Inter Globe Aviation limited has been annexed as annexure-‘D’. It has been further mentioned in the w.s. that on 08-03-2015, the customer care of staff Inter Globe Limited sent emails onthe registered email address to the complainant , regrettable informing him that since the said piece of
baggage was not traceable, and that as had been mutually agreed in terms of the IndiGo CoC, offering him an amount of INR 5,250/- ( being INR 350/- per kilogram for the piece of baggage weighing 15 kilogram as compensation towards the loss of the luggage in due compliance with the incident policies. It has been further mentioned that aforesaid email also offered to complainant for travel voucher worth INR Rs. 3,000/- which could be used for any future reservation by anybody on any sector. Photocopy of emails dated 08-03-2015 offering complainant afore- stated amounts, is annexed as annexure-E. It has been further mentioned that the aforesaid offer was not accepted by the complainant as he failed to provide his NEFT details in acceptance of the offer.
On behalf of complainant AW-1 Suniti Mehrotra and (wife of complainant), AW-2 Manoj Mehrotra have been examined.
No evidence has been adduced on behalf of o.ps.
Travelling from Patna to Banglore by complainant, his wife and son are admitted fact. Missing of Baggage from the indio airlines is also an admitted fact. O.p no.- 2 & 3 have stated in their w.s. that they offered INR at the rate 350 per kg to maximum ceiling Of INR Rs. 20000/- to the complainant which was not accepted by the him.
Learned Lawyer for o.ps submits that as per rule of INDIGO- condition of carries rule, the liability of inter Globe
Aviation Ltd. in the case of loss of baggage is Limited. to INR 350 per Kg subject to maximum ceiling of INR Rs. 20,000/- and the company offered the same. He further submits that the law of Civil Aviation has overriding effect on the findings of NCDRC, New Delhi passed in revision petition No.-2601/2016 Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. Vs Manish Nagapal decided on 25-04-2017.
Perused the entire material available on record. In the case of Emirate/ Vs Dr. Rajesh Chopra decided by NCDRC New Delhi in first Appeal 204/2008, Hon’ble N.C. has observed in para-9 of the above order which is as follows-
“ We have carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the evidence on record. The fact that the respondent and his wife travelled by appellant airlines to attend for a business conference where one of the baggage’s was misplaced and was not found till date, is an admitted fact. It is also a fact that on the return journey, their second luggage was ripped open and some papers removed. 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 basis 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 the 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 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, manufactures 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 consumers 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 Respondents 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 Appellants 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.”
In another case of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Vs Ajit Kr. Sinha, Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi has also passed the order for granting compensation and he also relied the case of emirates Vs Dr. Rajesh Chopra.
In the above case of Jet Airways Hon’ble State Commission has observed in para-13 which is as follows-
“The Consumer Protection Act-1986 has been enacted to give relief to Consumer for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice V/s Service providing traders, manufactures, etc and Hon’ble S.C. in The Consumer and Citizen Forum V/s Karnataka power corporation (1994) (1) ( CPR130) has laid down that the provisions of this Act given the Consumer an Additional remedy besides those that may be available under others existing laws. In the instant case, no doubt the appellant Airlines had sought to settle the Consumer’s Grievance purely in terms of national 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 mishandling the respondent’s losing luggage which caused him harassment agony, mental tension and loss, professional face apart from monetary loss, he is entitled to compensation for this deficiency in service of Appellant’s part as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Keeping in view these facts, the State Commission, has awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lacs/-. We see no reason to disagree with the compensation awarded which we feel is fully justified in the circumstances.”
The facts of this case also relates with the facts of above two cases whereas the facts of this case differs from the facts of the case of inter Globe Aviation Ltd. V/s Manish Nagpal, submitted on behalf of o.ps. In the case of inter Globe Aviation Ltd. Vs. Manish Nagpal the baggage of the respondents was received later on. In the case before us, 1 bags of the complainant has not been received as yet. So, there is deficiency on part of complainant.
The o.ps have also raised another question of jurisdiction of this Consumer Forum. The complainant booked air ticket from Muzaffarpur, so first cause of action arose in Muzaffarpur. The question of jurisdiction has also been decided in the above referred cases filed on behalf of complainant. So, we are of the considered opinion that this forum has got jurisdiction to try the case.
On the basis of above discussions, material available on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of complainant, we are of the opinion that complainant has been able to prove its case and the o.ps are liable to pay compensation.
Accordingly, the complaint petition is allowed and the o.ps are directed to pay Rs. 1,87,500/- to the complainant for loss of bag and articles and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost. within two months from the date of order, /, on failure they shall be responsible to pay the above amount with 8 % per annum interest till realization. Let a copy of this order be furnished to both the parties as per rule.
