DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC-  47   of   2017

 

     1. Smt. Krishna Chakraborty,

W/O- Bidhu Mohan Rudrapaul,

Nandannagar, P.S. New Capital Complex,

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

     2. Sri Aniket Chakraborty,

S/O- Lt. Dharmadas Chakraborty,

Vill + P.O. Nandannagar,

P.S. New Capital Complex,

Agartala, West Tripura. …..….…...Complainants.

 

         VERSUS

     

     1. The Indigo, 

Represented by the 

In-charge,

Central Wing, Ground Floor,

Thapar House, 124,

Janpath, New Delhi- 110001,

India.

 

     2. The Indigo,

Agartala Customer Care Office,

Represented by its Senior Officer, 

Agartala Office,

Airport Authority of India,

Agartala Airport,

Agartala- 799009,

Tripura West.

 

     3. The Indigo,

In-charge,

Represented by 

Mr. Pritam Saha,

Agartala Airport,

P.S. Airport, West Tripura. ..........Opposite parties.

 

 

 __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri P. Roy Barman,

 Sri Koushik Nath,  

 Advocates.  

 

For the Opposite Parties : Sri Koushik Roy,

 Sri Udai Sankar Singha,

 Advocates.

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   07.09.2017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed one Krishna Chakraborty U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 04.01.16 she purchased tickets for availing journey from Bangalore to Kolkata and Kolkata to Agartala and obtained 2 air tickets. Luggage was booked at Bangalore. But when she reached at Agartala she found that one luggage was missing. Complainant reported. Searched the bag but it was not available. It was reported that bag number was wrongly mentioned by the concerned staff. Saree, blanket and other valuable articles were inside the luggage. The Indigo authority informed that luggage would be returned very soon. But the missing luggage not located till date. The O.P. Indigo then offered her only Rs.2,000/-. she did not accept it and filed this complaint for getting redress. 

 

2. O.P. appeared filed W.S. denying the claim. It is stated that the liability of the O.P. for the loss of the luggage is to  be determine as per the Indigo rules approved by the Ministry of Civil Aviation Carriage by Air Act. Declaration about the value of the  articles inside the luggage not given by the petitioner. Claim of Rs.1 Lac is excessive and petitioner is not entitled to get the same.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the luggage was lost by the negligence of the staff of the Indigo?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation?

 

4. Petitioner produced original copy of the Indigo Air tickets, boarding pass, luggage tag, copy of PIR also legal notice and response received from the Indigo. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of Krishna Chakraborty, P.W.1.

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the statement of affidavit of Aayushi Agarwal and copy of Authority Letter, Certificate of corporation, true copy of PIR, copy of Screen Shot showing the weight of the baggage bearing no- 249521.

 

6. On the basis of all these evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision:

7. We have gone through the Property Irregularity Report(PIR) as produced by the Indigo. Saree, Blanket, Toy is written in the PIR, Annexure-D. The weight of the luggage is written 9kg, 9kg, 9kg. One luggage was lost. This number was 0312495251. But in the PIR number is written 252' not '1'. Complainant in her statement on affidavit did not mention the price of the lost items. What is the price of blanket, saree toy is not written. Weight was 9kg. O.P. valued it and offered Rs.2,000/-. In the latter additional statement on affidavit complainant stated that the price of Banarasi Saree as Rs.9,500/-, pure silk Sarees, Rs.10,500/-, Churidars, Rs. 3,000/- Blanket, Rs.2,500/-, medicine, Rs. 8,500 and value of trolley bag Rs.10,000/-. Original copy of ticket was produced. Petitioner paid the luggage charge. 

 

8. Indigo rules in assessing the compensation for the damaged baggage can not be basis as because it was not disclosed to the passenger at the time of boarding or sale of tickets. The value of the items however, was not declared by the passengers. She was not supposed to carry valuable items in the luggage. However, we consider that the value of the saree and blanket and other items inside the trolley bag was Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand). The value of old trolley bag is Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand). So total amount is Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) petitioner also suffered mentally because of this sudden loss in the airport. So, for mental sufferings, Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) is awarded, Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) is awarded for litigation cost. In total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.28,000/-(Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand).

9. We direct the O.P. to pay the amount of Rs.28,000/-(Rupees Twenty Eight thousand) to the petitioner within 2(two) months, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. 

 

 

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.