Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/62/2023

EKTA SEHGAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

EMIRATES AIRLINES - Opp.Party(s)

BHAWAN DEEP JINDAL

05 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/62/2023
Date of Institution	:	9.2.2023
Date of Decision	:	5/6/2024

 

Ekta Sehgal, aged 42 years, D/o Kuljeet Singh Sehgal, resident of House no. 1507, Sector-34-D, Chandigarh.

 

Complainant

VERSUS

 

Emirates Airlines, unit no.209 & 210, 2nd Floor, East Wing, Worldmark 1, Aerocity, New Delhi, 110037 through its Chief Executive officer.

Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Bhawan Deep Jindal, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Ms. Shivani Saini, Advocate proxy for Sh. Raja Paramdeep Saini, Advocate for OP.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated  the complainant travelled in the airlines of the OP from Accra (Capital of Ghana) for Dubai and thereafter from Duabai to New Delhi.  The complainant had checked in on 16.10.2022 as per the schedule. The complainant was carrying 2 bags, one green bag make Echolac and one blue bag make Flylite. The charge of said bags were handed over to Opposite Party namely Emirates Airlines vide tags no. EK230695 and EK230696. At the time of departure, the combined weight of the bags was 43 Kgs. On 17.10.2023 at around 8:20 pm, the flight landed in New Delhi. On reaching New Delhi, complainant was waiting for her luggage to arrive at the airport conveyor belt but after waiting for sufficient time, she found that her bags were not there on the airport conveyor belt. The concerned officials told the complainant to wait for some more time as there may be some delay due to technical problems. The complainant continued to make enquires about her luggage with the concerned officials but with no result. After much botheration the authorities told  the complainant to look over in a deserted corner where some of the luggage was kept and upon looking, the complainant saw both the bags kept totally away and found tampered with and were partially open. The bags were in a damaged condition. The bags were partially open and the zippers were not drawn together. On opening the said bags, complainant found that her clothes including her delicate items had been frisked and the entire contents of the bags were upside down. From the condition of the bags, it was clearly inferred that someone had forcibly opened the bags by breaking the locks of the bags and then, ruffled through the bag's contents and extracted the items to their liking. During the inspection of the bags and evaluation of the weight, it was found that the weight of the bags had reduced to 39.2 Kg combined against the departure weight of 43 kgs and 4 Kg of items were missing from the bags. On repeated requests complaint no. DPR DELEK33974 was registered.  it is alleged that many articles were found missing from the bags and details whereof is given in para 11 of the complaint. It is alleged that the complainant repeatedly requested the Ops to compensate for the harassment faced by her but the Ops only offered US200 for the settlement of the claim.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed the complainant sent legal notice Annexure C-9 but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Party in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that upon arrival at the New Delhi, airport on 17 October 2022, it was alleged by the Complainant that she received the Baggage in a damaged state at the conveyor belt and reportedly there was pilferage in the contents of the Baggage. Upon receiving the complaint, the Opposite Party's staff at the New Delhi Airport took immediate action to understand the cause of such happening to the extent possible. Thereafter, the answering OP staff generated a Property Irregularity Report bearing no DELEK33974 (Property Irregularity Report)in their system, raised by the Complainant The Opposite Party's staff at the New Delhi Airport, also requested the Complainant to provide a copy of the invoices against the missing items as reported, in order to enable them to review and process the claim as required. However, the Complainant failed to do so even upon multiple requests. The Complainant sent an email dated 27 October 2022 to the Opposite Party alleging that not only wooden artefacts but a few other items including makeup, clothes, local fabric of Ghana were also missing from the Baggage. On 01 November 2022, OP by way of an email assured the Complainant that the incident is reported to the OP security department and they are in the process of investigating the cause of the missing, Items. The Commplainant accordingly provided the copy of the BIF on 03 November 2022. However, the same was not accompanied with any supporting invoices and documents whatsoever. The OP in the meanwhile upon concluding its investigation arrived at a finding that the alleged pilferage is not on account of any act or omission of the OP. Further, the OP is bound by its Conditions of Carriage in terms whereof, the OP assumes no liability for any loss of baggage which is not attributable to any negligence of the OP. However, the OP as a goodwill gesture was open to consider the Complainant's claim subject to assessment of proof of loss/invoices of the contents allegedly pilfered.  In the absent any proof of loss or supporting evidence the Opposite Party partially allowed the claim of the Complainant bearing in mind the inconvenience caused and the fact that the Complainant is a regular flyer with the OP airlines. Therefore, on 07 November 2022, the Complainant was offered an amount of USD 200 as settlement for the claim, even though the Complainant failed to provide any purchase receipts or supporting documents as requested. The Complainant however, without considering the OP’s offer issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party. Moreover, it is settled by way of various precedents that the airlines and the passenger are bound by the terms and conditions as terms of a contract of carriage. It is further submitted that the Carriage by Air Act, 1972  incorporates the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air signed on 28 May 1999 i.e.  the 'Montreal Convention' which is a universal set of rules adopted by each of the member states ratifying to the Convention. Pertinently, the Condition of Carriage of an Airline are aligned with the Montreal Convention incorporated in Schedule II of the CA Act. Denying any deficiency in service on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that while traveling in the flight of the OP her bags were damaged and some articles were missing from the bags and the said act of OP  amounts to deficiency in service.
7. After going through the documents on record it is   abundantly clear as well as admitted on the part of the OP that some  articles from the bags of the complainant were missing and even the bags of the complainant were found in damaged conditions. As per Annexure C-4 the photographs, it is proved on record that the items worth weight 3.8 kg were missing from the bags, which is itself negligence on the part of the airlines as it failed to take care of the luggage of the complainant even after charging hefty amount for the tickets. In our opinion certainly in such like situation the complainant have undergone a lot of harassment and embarrassment as she did not get her luggage back from the airlines for a long time and when the same was received back some articles were found missing therefrom and the chain of the bags were found broken which caused immense harassment  to the complainant. Hence there is negligence on the part of the OP.
8.  Annexure C-8  is the copy of email sent by the OP to the complainant  through which they have offered USD 200  for settlement of the complainant for the damage of the bag. However, as per para 11 of the written statement of OPs at page 5  it is mentioned that the complainant is bound by Montreal Convention. The relevant portion of section 15.5.4(c) of terms and conditions of Carriage For Passengers and Baggage at page 49  of the paper book of  the written version of the OP is reproduced as under:-

“15.5.4(c) The National Currency Equivalent of 1,288 SDRs per Passenger, or any higher sum agreed by us pursuant to Article 15.5.5, applies to Damage to both Unchecked and Checked Baggage where the Montreal Convention applies to your carriage”

 

9. As per above rule the liability of the OP airlines will be limited to 1288 SDR for damage to checked or unchecked baggage. As it has proved on record that due to negligent act of the OP, the bags of the complainant were damaged and some articles were also missing from the bags of the complainant, hence, the OP is liable to pay the complainant 1288 SDR, which shall be paid by it to the complainant in Indian rupees at the rate prevailed on the date of incident/loss.
10. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OP is directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs.1288 SDR to the complainant in Indian rupees at the rate prevailed at the time of incident/loss i.e. October 2023  with interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing of the instant complaint  till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.      This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they 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.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member