DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No. : 136 of 2018
Date of Institution: 9.08.2018
Date of Decision : 20.03.2019
Surinder Singh Gandhi aged about 34 years son of Surjit Singh, resident of Talab Mohalla, Faridkot Tehsil Faridkot District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
Go Airlines (India) Ltd. 1st Floor, C-1 Wadia International Centre (WIC) Pandurag Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai (Nearest Landmark : Deepa Talkies Board Line : 6741 0000.
....Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Gurdeep Singh Arora, Ld Counsel for complainant,
OP-Exparte.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs.95,000/-for loss of articles and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant got booked air ticket from OP and paid charges through bank. He was provided PNR No. PYEYRQ and he alongwith his wife and friends travelled from Delhi to Goa through airline of OP by flight no.G8286 on 5.05.2018. It is submitted that complainant paid full fare including baggage charges alongwith all taxes and other charges to OP. OP assured complainant regarding safety of baggage and then, on assurance of OP, complainant handed over his baggage to OP and received a token no. G 80879777907 for said baggage. On 5.05.2018, when complainant boarded off at Airport, he found his baggage missing and on asking the staff of OP, they sought time for finding the baggage of complainant and assured complainant that in case of any kind of loss, they would compensate the complainant. on 16.05.2018, OP sent an e-mail to complainant whereby informed him that his baggage has been lost and they would compensate the complainant very soon, but till date, nothing needful has been done by them. Said baggage of complainant contained costly articles, ornaments, cash worth Rs.50,000/-and total loss of complainant is about of Rs.95,000/-. Act of OP in not compensating the complainant for loss caused to him amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14.08.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 Notice issued to OP through RC AD did not receive back undelivered and presumed to be served. Acknowledgment might have been lost or mis-laid in transit. Statutory period expired and when no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP either in person or through counsel, and therefore, vide order dated 9.10.2018, OP was proceeded against exparte.
5 Ld counsel for complainant tendered in exparte evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-8 and then, closed the evidence.
6 As there is no rebuttal from Opposite party, therefore, we have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through the documents placed on record by complainant.
7 Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant got booked air ticket from OP and paid charges through bank and also paid full fare including baggage charges alongwith all taxes and other charges to OP. Thereafter, complainant alongwith his wife and friends travelled from Delhi to Goa through airline of OP on 5.05.2018. On assurance of OP regarding safety of his baggage, complainant handed over his baggage to OP and on 5.05.2018, when complainant boarded off at Airport, he found his baggage missing and on asking the staff of OP, they sought time for finding his baggage and assured for compensation in case of any kind of loss, but on 16.05.2018, OP sent an e-mail to complainant whereby informed him that his baggage has been lost and they would compensate the complainant very soon, but they did not do anything needful. It is further argued that said baggage of complainant contained costly articles, ornaments, cash worth Rs.50,000/-and thus, total loss of complainant is about of
Rs.95,000/-. Despite repeated requests by complainant, OP have not done anything needful. Non payment of compensation by OP for the articles lost by them amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.
8 We have heard the counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence of complainant. Grievance of complainant is that he got booked air ticket through OP and also paid charges for luggage and other taxes and on assurance of OP regarding safety of his baggage, complainant handed over his baggage to OP and on 5.05.2018, when complainant boarded off at Airport, he found his baggage missing and on asking OP, their staff members sought time for finding the same and assured to compensate the complainant in case of any loss, but vide e mail dated 16.05.2018, OP informed him that his baggage has been lost and also assured to compensate the complainant very soon. Cost of said baggage comes to Rs.95,000/-as it contained Rs.50,000/-in cash, costly clothes and ornaments and some other expensive articles. On reaching Goa, complainant had to purchase new clothes for himself and his wife and other requisite articles for their daily use as they lost their baggage due to negligence on the part of OP. Repeated requests by complainant to OP to compensate him for the loss caused to him has bore no fruit, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal from OP side as nobody appeared on behalf of OP to contest the allegations levelled by him. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the contrary, there is nothing on record from Opposite party.
9 To prove his case, complainant has relied upon documents Ex C-1, affidavit of complainant and Ex C-2 legal notice issued by complainant to OP through his counsel. These both documents reiterate the grievance of complainant. Ex C-4 and Ex C-5 are copies of tickets that prove the pleadings of complainant. Ex C-6 and Ex C-7 are copies of e-mails sent by complainant to OP wherein he requested OP for taking necessary action on complaint of complainant regarding missing articles and for redressal of his grievance. Requests made by complainant to OP to find his baggage and to redress his grievance bore no fruit. Through all these documents complainant has tried to prove his allegations against OP. On the contrary, there is no rebuttal from Opposite Party as no body bothered to appear and contest the allegations levelled by complainant. Complainant has adduced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case. Documents produced by complainant seem to be authentic and there appears to be no doubt regarding the allegations of complainant. OP is deficient in providing services to complainant and has also failed to take any action on complaint of complainant and in redressing his grievance.
10 We are fully convinced with the evidence and arguments of Counsel for the complainant. The complainant succeeds in proving this case, so the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. The OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000/-to complainant on account of price of lost articles and are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of
Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 20.03.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
