Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/99

Shikha Narang - Complainant(s)

Versus

China Southern Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Sethi adv

02 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 99 dated 13.07.2020.                                                Date of decision: 02.02.2023.

 

Shikha Narang aged 44 years W/o. Davinder Kumar Narang, r/o.894, Tilak Nagar, Near Chori Sarak, Ludhiana-141008.                                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. China Southern Airline, Delhi Airport Office address Room No.1, CIP Level Indira Gandhi International Airport Terminal-3, Delhi, India through authorized signatory. Phone 0091-11-61238358/59 (Email: delapcz@yahoo.in)                                                                                                                                               …..Opposite party No.1
2. The Holiday Experts, 2734/1, Jagtar Nagar, Opp. Kind Palace, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.

.....Performa opposite party No.2

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant along with her husband and children booked their air tickets for holiday tour to Melbourne etc. through E-tickets from opposite party No.2 on 04.10.2019 for the period 22.12.2019 to 19.01.2020 and paid the cost of e-tickets through credit card. As per schedule, the complainant took the airline flight bearing No.CZ360 of opposite party No.1 on 22.12.2019 from Delhi to Guangzhou and further air line flight No.CZ343 from Guangzhou to Melbourne where the complainant along with her family stayed and made various purchases during her stay. The complainant stated that they started their journey back to India on 18.01.2020 at 23.30 PM on flight No.CZ322 of opposite party No.1 from Melbourne to Guangzhou. She was possessing e-ticket No.7849478524664/3 and seat No.55G. She was having two bags and in one bag, she kept the purchased items under safe lock of the bag while other family members were carrying their separate bags. At the time of her departure from Melbourne to Guangzhou at the Melbourne airport, two bags of the complainant  bearing tag No.CZ484473 having weight of 19 KG were retained by opposite party No.1 for external and internal checking and scanning as per airline rules and bags of other family members were also checked and scanned. The complainant further stated that on reaching Guangzhou, flight of the complainant and other family members were changed to airlines flight CZ3027 of opposite party No.1 for Delhi as per E-ticket schedule. Bags of the complainant and other family members were also lifted from previous flight No.CZ322 by the opposite party at its own level for the purpose of transferring and loading to air flight CZ3027. On reaching Delhi airport on 19.01.2020 instead to hand over the bag bearing tag No.CZ484473, opposite partyNo.1 handed over inspection report namely ‘Notice of checked baggage inspection bearing Sr. No.CAN20190022046 at 19.01.2020 against tag No.484473 and flight No.3027 and disclosing therein that one battery removed and taken in their custody without consent and approval of the complainant on the ground of regulation of Civil Aviation Security of the Peoples Republic of China and other relevant laws and disclosed that bag bearing tag No.CZ484473 was found missing and they disclosed that complainant has been registered by them on the basis of “Property Irregularity report” (PIR). They further assured that as and when said bag recovered/found, same shall be delivered at residential address at Ludhiana. The complainant further submitted that thereafter, opposite party No.1 visited her at Ludhiana on 22.01.2020 and asked her to receive the bags as it is being packed in visible plastic cover. However, the complainant acknowledged that weight of the bag is felt lower that she carried at Melbourne. The complainant took snaps as well as prepared video before opening the bags and the bag lock was found broken. After opening the bag, she found that all the purchased goods were not therein except their cover. She made remarks on the file reference No.DECZ19298 dated 19.01.2020 that camera, wine bottle, perfume, wallet, cloths and 190 USD were missing which opposite party No.1 took back after signatures of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant lodger her claim on 22.01.2020 through various emails and email dated 28.01.2020. Opposite aprtyNo.1 vide email dated 13.02.2020 refused to compensate the complainant on the ground that after investigation, they have not found any baggage weight discrepancy and that any valuable items are not allowed to carry in check-in baggage. The complainant further submitted that CCTV footage and investigation report was not supplied to her nor opposite party No.1 gave any response to the video and photos of the lost item from the baggage in the broken lock condition. The act and conduct on the part of opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency in service causing financial loss as well as mental tension agony, harassment to the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the end, the complainant has sought direction to opposite party No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- besides to pay Rs.1,29,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.15,000/-.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party No.2 through registered post on 09.02.2021 but none turned up for opposite party No.2 and as such, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.04.2021. However, upon filing correct address of opposite party No.1, notice was issued to it through registered post on 17.03.2022 but none turned up for opposite party No.1 and as such, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.06.2022.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA1 and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record Ex. C1 copy of e-ticket, Ex. C2 to Ex. C6 copies of invoices, Ex. C7  to Ex. C10 are the copies of tags placed on luggage/bags, Ex.  C11 is the copy of notice of checked baggage inspection, Ex. C12 is the copy of property irregularity report, Ex. C13 copy of receipt dated 19.01.2020, Ex. C14 to Ex. C17 are the copies of photographs, Ex. C17A is the CD, Ex. C18 to Ex. C28 are the copies of emails and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and documents annexed by the complainant.

5.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has contended that opposite party is negligent and deficient in providing services to the complainant as opposite party No.1 failed to take care the baggage of the complainant due to which some articles lying in the bag were found missing and moreover the lock of the bag was also broken. In this regard, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon case titled as Air India Vs Dibakar Bhattacharjee and another passed in First Appeal No.822 of 2018 decided on 20.07.2022 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

6.                Perusal of the record shows that the complainant along with her family members went on hoidays package from 22.12.2019 to 19.01.2020 to Australia via Guangzhou (China). On 19.01.2020, when they reached Delhi Airport on their return journey, they were told by opposite party No.1 that due to inspection of the luggage, a notice of checked baggage inspection bearing Sr. No.CAN20190022046 at 19.01.2020 stating that one battery removed and taken in their custody at the airport in China on their return journey. Opposite party No.1 also informed that whenever they receive their luggage, it will be delivered to her at her residential address at Ludhiana. On 22.01.2020, a representative of opposite party No.1 namely Akshay Gaur visited the residence of the complainant and delivered the detained luggage of inspection, the complainant found that the lock of the bag was broken and following items as described in Ex. C13 were found missing:-

          ‘Camera, wine bottle, perfume, wallet, cloths, handbag clutches and $190 USD’

However, the luggage was received by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a claim with opposite party No.1 for settlement of her claim with regard to missing items but vide email Ex. C28 dated 13.02.2020, opposite party No.1 finally refused to compensate the complainant.

7.                The complainant had lodged the claim for compensation with regard to seven items which includes 190 US$ and in order to substantiate her claim with regard to ownership of the articles, the complainant had appended invoices from Ex. C2 to Ex. C6 in order to justify her purchases made by her during her travel to Australia. A close scrutiny of invoice Ex. C2 reveals that this purchase was made on 08.12.2019 i.e. much before her stay in Australia. So this Commission is not inclined to consider this invoice for the purpose of computing the loss of the complainant. There is no proof to the fact that bag contained 190 US$ in it. Keeping in view the face value of the invoices in foreign currency, this Commission feels it just and proper to round off in Indian currency to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Needless to say that there was a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. The refusal on the part of opposite party to settle the claim of the complainant was not justified in view of the fact that the inventory with regard to missing articles was prepared in the presence of their delivery agent namely Akshay Gaur. So opposite party No.1 is liable to pay a composite cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. As no relief has been claimed against opposite party No.2 being a performa opposite party and as such, the complaint against opposite party No.2 is liable to be dismissed.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with an order that opposite party No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant being the cost of missing items within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. Opposite party No.1 shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.2 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Shikha Narang Vs China Southern Airlines                              CC/20/99

Present:       Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for complainant.

                   OPs exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with an order that opposite party No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant being the cost of missing items within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. Opposite party No.1 shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.2 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.