DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.107/2011

Sital Kumar Agarwal,

S/o Shri Tilak Raj Agarwal           

56 Ashoka Apartments

68 Nepean Sea Raod

Mumbai-400006                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

Indian Airlines

Safdarjung Airport

Aurobindo Marg

New Delhi – 110003.

Air Port Authority of India

Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan

Safdarjung Airport

New Delhi-110003                                                                                       ….Opposite Party

       Date of Institution    :         21.03.2011

       Date of Order             :        10.12.2021

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

The complainant has filed the present complaint requesting a compensation of Rs.13,65,000/- for the losses that were suffered in business extra expenditure on visits to Delhi to get back his articles, harassment mental torture and agony.

The complainant has filed this complaint against OP No.1 Indian airlines and OP No. 2 Airport Authority of India Ltd. The case of the complainant’s that he had booked air ticket in Indian Airlines and was allotted ticket number E-tkt No. 058-9770 2677 27 by it's flight number IC 806 from Mumbai to Delhi on the morning of 05.07.2010. It is the case of the complainant that he had booked the flight so that he could attend the marriage ceremony of his niece but when he reached the Delhi airport by the said flight, he found certain items missing from his pouch which included the following:

i. Rs.20000/- cash

ii. A gold coin 5 gms bearing the marking of national refinery private limited Mumbai

iii. A 100 U.S. dollar note

The complainant was carrying the cash and two similar gold coins which were to be gifted to the new bride and bridegroom on the occasion of their marriage. A complaint was lodged by the complainant immediately with the OP No. 1. Another two complaints were lodged by the son of the complainant on the website of Indian airlines vide reference number 201007 051 63314 and 201007051 63856. The copy of the FIR is also enclosed alongwith the complaint at Page 10.

Through an article published in newspaper the Complainant came to know on 06. 07.2010 that two loaders at the Delhi airport have been arrested by the CISF police. The complainant then met the manager of the OP No. 2 and was directed to meet the duty officer at Mumbai airport. The complainant informed his son at Mumbai to meet the airport authorities on the same day i.e. 06.07.2010 who directed him to contact OP No.1 as the articles missing have been recovered. It is further the case of the complainant that he had to stay back in Delhi for quite some time ignoring his important business at hand so that he could attend the court hearings to recover his articles that he had lost. The articles were finally handed over to the complainant on 24.12.2010 after many dates. The certified copy of the order is annexed as ‘F-7’ at page 31 of the complaint.

Claiming negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties since they could not take care of the belongings of the complaint, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

The OP No.2 i.e. Airport Authority of India Ltd. has taken a preliminary objection that after the privatization of the airports, the security at the airports is taken care of by CISF. They have also stated that baggage handling is the work of the concerned airlines and that they have nothing to do with it.

OP No. 1 i.e. Indian Airlines have stated that the persons who were involved in the theft were the employees of M/s Universal Aviation who were hired by the OP No.1 to provide services with respect to handling the baggage and that if there is any liability that is of M/s Universal Aviation and not that of OP No.1. They also stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties and that the present complaint has been only filed to gain undo riches. They have further stated that the lost articles have already been recovered and therefore no injury has been caused to the Complainant. On the point of delay, it is stated that if there is any delay it is merely procedural to which the OP No.1 cannot be held responsible. The OP No.1 has also refuted the factual allegations made by the complainant and have denied that any embarrassment or harassment was caused to the complainant due to them. It is further stated that the complaint of the Complainant was duly forwarded to the security department and investigation was initiated and that the CISF and the complainant himself were directly dealing with the matter and FIRs in this connection were lodged therefore the OP No.1 was relieved from further investigation into the matter.

Evidence of all the parties are on record and so are the written arguments.

At the time of arguments the counsel for the OP No.1 has referred to sub section (2) (a) of Section 22 of The Carriage Act which states that the liability of the Carrier is limited to Rs.200/- . This Act has been made applicable by Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation to domestic travel by virtue of a notification dt.30.03.1973. The counsel has also placed on record the contract which the OP No.1 has with M/s Universal Aviation and has further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Consumer Unity & Trust Society, Jaipur vs Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta  (1995) 2 SCC 150’ to claim that there is no negligence on the part of the OP No.1.

After perusing the material on record and hearing both the parties, this Commission is of the view that OP No.1 has been negligent in their act and there has been deficiency in the services provided to the Complainant.. The complainant had the contract with OP No.1 and therefore

OP No.1 cannot take refuge behind the plea that they are not answerable for the actions committed by their agents i.e. M/s Universal Aviation. In Air India vs Harpreet Singh R.P No. 1231/2003 passed by Hon’ble NCDRC it was held that “An argument that Air India could not suffer for the fault of the agent is against the basic principles of law particularly against the provisions of the Contract Act. Air India is certainly liable for the negligence of its agent.”   

Since the Complainant has recovered the lost articles, the liability under the provisions of Carriage by Air Act do not apply to the present complaint. However, it is matter of fact that the complainant has made multiple trips to Delhi for recovery of his lost articles and has placed on record the nine invoices that pertain to these trips. Therefore, we direct OP No. 1 to compensate the Complainant for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for the expenditure that the complainant was forced to make on account of the recovery of lost articles. The mental agony suffered by the complainant cannot be measured in terms of money however a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is deemed sufficient to be paid to the Complainant. Both these amounts are liable to be paid by the OP No.1 within two months from the date of this order, failure of which would further attract a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. 

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties.