Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/63/2020

Rajeev Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Go-Airlines India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/63/2020
Date of Institution	:	03/02/2020
Date of Decision	:	07/08/2023

 

Rajeev Sharma, aged 53 years, son of Sh.Ram Nath Sharma, R/o House No.3357, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Go-Airlines India Ltd., First Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (WIC), Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400025, India through its authorized person.
2. Make My Trip, through its Managing Director/authorized signatory, office SCO 169, First Floor, Near Sindhi Sweets, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

 … Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Gaurav Gupta, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Mohit Garg, Vice Counsel for Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	Ms.Kusum Kaushik, vice counsel for Sh.Harsh Vardhan, Counsel for OP No.2.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had booked a trip of Bangkok to enjoy his vacations for period 25.12.2019 to 30.12.2019. The complainant had paid Rs.22,276/- for the booking of ticket. As per schedule, the complainant boarded his flight on 25.12.2019 from Delhi Airport and deposited his luggage bag at Delhi Airport to OP No.1 containing 5 shirts, 5 pants, 7 sets of inner wear, 1 shaving kit, 3 track suits and 500 USD in cash. The flight of the complainant landed at Bangkok on the same day i.e., 25.12.2019 and on reaching there, the complainant was shocked and surprised to see that the bag of the complainant was found missing. Thereafter, the complainant registered the complaint regarding the loss of his baggage at Bangkok Airport. The airport authorities assured for the return of baggage however, the baggage was not returned by the authorities till date. The complainant felt very harassed and humiliated and the tour of the complainant got spoiled because of the OP’s deficiency. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that without admitting any default on its part the liability of this OP No.1 is limited to compensation offered by as per the policy terms and conditions. The complainant was well aware of these terms and conditions at the time of booking, and have accepted the same without any dispute. The OP No.1 is not at all responsible for the alleged inconvenience or loss as claimed to be suffered by them. The OP No.1 further states that the list of articles attached to the complainant is after thought and is unnecessary added to extract money from OP No.1 and therefore, deny the same for want of knowledge and the complainant is put to the strict proof to prove that the baggage was containing the items mentioned by complainant. It is also submitted that the baggage are sorted there on manual intervention by different airlines and then transferred for loading on the aircraft. It is the possibility that during this process and due to the manual intervention of staff of various airlines the baggage might get misplaced. It is further stated that sometime it so happens that some other passenger may wrongly carry the baggage of other passenger whether with or without any intentions and therefore, the baggage might go missing. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the OP No.2 has provided the desired confirmed flight bookings for the desired sectors for which he has hired the services of the OP No.2. After the issuance of the confirmed tickets, the OP No.2 is discharged from its duties and obligations qua the complainant. The OP No.2 has only been impleaded a party to the present complaint to extort undue monetary advantage. It is further submitted that it is the duty of the OP No.1, to compensate the complainant for the loss of baggage during the travel as per the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and Citizen Charter. It is also mentioned on the website of the Director General of Civil Aviation, in case of loss of baggage, the concerned airline is duty bound and liable to compensate the traveler. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     On perusal of the complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that he was not duly compensated by the OPs for the loss of his baggage. On perusal of the documents C-3 to C-7, it is observed that the baggage of the complainant did not reach, once he reached the desired belt after air travel, to receive the luggage.
8.     We reproduce here below the relevant terms and conditions regarding compensation in case of baggage loss as contained in para 11 of the para wise reply of OP No.1.

“GoAir is not liable for any loss or damage occurred by delay in the carriage by air of Customers or baggage.

GoAir’s liability for loss of baggage is limited to Rs.200/- per kg up to a maximum of Rs.4000/- whichever is lower. GoAir assumes no liability for fragile or perishable articles…”

 

        Since the complainant has not mentioned the weight of the baggage & we assume that it could not have exceeded 20 kg as per ticket. Hence, the maximum compensation for 20 kg works out to be Rs.4000/- only as per terms and condition of the OP No.1.     

9.     The OP No.1 has not even adduced any evidence on records, regarding payment of Rs.4000/- to the complainant. By not paying the same, the OP No.1 has indulged in unfair trade practice & is deficient in providing service to the complainant.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹4000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP No.2, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
12.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within thirty 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.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
07/08/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member