Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Judicial Member
This consumer complaint pertains to compensation for alleged deficiency in service on part of the airliens for not delivering the baggage at the destination airport and to claim compensation for mental agony/anxiety suffered by the complainants, etc.
Undisputed facts are that complainants who are senior citizens had booked tickets for going to Vancouver by O.P. –British Airways. Complainants had with them three baggages which were handed over to the O.P. at starting destination at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal at Mumbai. However, at the destination station there baggages did not arrive and were not delivered to them. Only one baggage out of three could be delivered to the complainants when they were on cruise at Ketchikan on 10/7/2007. Other two baggages were delivered to the complainants on their return on 13/8/2007 at Mumbai airport. Since the baggages could not be delivered on arrival at the destination station at Vancouver, the O.P. took care of the situation and handed over Canadian dollar 160 to the complainants to meet their urgent necessities.
It is the grievance of the complainants that due to such loss of baggages, they deprived of the pleasure of their holidays and had to spent time in worry and to make immediate arrangement to purchase essential goods and articles. They had to incur expenditure of US 2100 dollars as mentioned in the annexure of the complaint. They claimed compensation at 50,000/- US dollars for each one of the complainants as under:-
“Resultant illness for a week and medical expenses 10000
Physical hardship and agony 15000
Mental agony – Torture 15000
Loss of vacation/pleasure days 10000
Total ….. 50000
It is also not disputed that complainants have received compensation equivalent to INR 1,26,870/- as spelt out by the O.P. in its letter dated 25/09/2007.
In this consumer complaint total claim of 102100 US dollars equivalent to Indian rupees after adjusting amount of `1,26,870/- (already received) by way of compensation, is made.
O.P. denied any deficiency in service on their part, submitted that they have already taken care of the situation and paid much more than what is due from them under the Montreal convention. They also submitted that claim made is exorbitant and, ultimately, asked to dismiss the consumer complaint.
Heard both the parties. Perused the record.
In the instant case, complainants failed to adduce any evidence except for producing the correspondence and particulars of their flight. They particularly failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their claim made for the expenditure. Correspondence between the parties is not in dispute. O.P. on its part adduced the evidence in form of affidavit of their Airport Manager Mr.Vivek Anand, which affirms the statements made in the written version.
The temporary loss of two baggages is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that out of three baggages only one was delivered to the complainants while they were on cruise, supra. It also remained undisputed that to meet the exigency, immediate monetary help was given to the complainants and from which they could purchase and buy the necessary cloths and articles.
The O.P. without going into the particulars of the articles purchased, out of the help given by letter dated 25/9/2007 (annexure 4 Exhibit E) which is not in dispute, submitted as under:-
“However, we know that during busy times our service to our customers may not always reflect the usual levels of customer service we pride ourselves on. I recognize this has been the case for you. Therefore we would like to try to settle your particular claim now rather than to ask you to wait any longer or to ask you to send in receipts at this time to prove your loss.
In order to seek to bring this matter to a close now I am arranging to send you a cheque for GBP1563/- in the equivalent INR to cover all of your expenses. This will arrive shortly.”
Accordingly, amount in INR `1,26,870/- Canadian dollars 160 have been paid. This letter makes it clear that the amount reimbursed of `126,870/- is towards to cover all the expenditure of the complainants which they had to incur on urgent basis. The bags which were temporarily lost, were subsequently actually delivered to them, but since to meet eventuality, the complainants were required to purchase articles of their necessity, therefore, we find that such payment do take care of the compensation which could have been claimed and awarded to the complainants on that count. However, it does not cover any compensation for the mental agony, stress and anxiety which the complainants a their age had to suffer. Finding that no baggage at the start of the cruise tour, certainly complainants who are senior citizens had to undergo mental anxieties, they had to live under shadow of such loss of baggages through out their trip. To the credit of O.P./airline, they immediately offered financial help to the complainants to buy necessities but nevertheless degree of anxieties suffered vis-à-vis loss of pleasure of the trip on part of the complainants can be well imagined. Since amount compensated does not cover any compensation on this count, we find it just and proper to award token compensation of `10,000/- to each one of the complainants (since there is no evidence led by the complainants on this issue). Further, we find it just and proper to award cost of `5000/- of this consumer complaint to the complainants.
For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
OPERATIVE ORDER
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. O.P. is directed to pay `20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and the anxieties suffered by both the complainants.
3. O.P. shall bear its own cost and to pay `5000/- as cost to the complainants.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
