Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

223/2013

J.Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo Airlines Inter Globe Aviation Ltd,Rep by chairman - Opp.Party(s)

P.C.Harikumar& Assts

13 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on  :  14.11.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  13.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 13^th  DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.223/2013

 

 

J.Babu,

No.13/10, Sengalani Amman Street,

Puzhuthivakkam,

Chennai – 600 091.

                                                                                               ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

	1.Indigo Airlines Inter Globe Aviation Ltd., Rep by its Chairman, Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli – Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. India.   2.Indigo Airlines Inter Globe Aviation Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director/Director, 144/145, Malaviga Centre, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
	.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  :21.11.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.P.C.Harikumar & Associates

Counsel for opposite parties                    : S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has travelled in the Opposite Parties flight bearing flight No.6E-279, from Mumbai to Chennai. But for the reasons best known to the Opposite Parties and without giving any prior intimation, the flight was delayed for which no apology was tendered or offered. But the Complainant patiently waited in the airport even though the flight was delayed and got the boarding pass. At the time of checking, the Complainant checked three baggages for which the Opposite Parties have also charged excess amount, since the Complainant got extra baggage weighing 5 kgs.  As soon as the flight reached Chennai airport, he had waited for his three baggages  at the baggage point. He could collect only two baggages instead of 3, as one baggage was missing. At last, the Complainant has taken up the issue and brought to the notice to the Duty Officer Mrs.Jayanthi at Chennai Airport and informed that one baggage containing new clothes, tea bags, shaving kid, shoes and socks etc., was missing. The Complaint was duly recorded by the duty officer Mrs.Jayanthi on 23.12.2012 in property Irregularity Report (PIR) in which the Duty Officer has clearly mentioned that all the above items contained in one baggage was missing. Based on the assurance and undertaking given by the duty officer of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant left Chennai airport under the fond hope that the lost baggage would be traced out and will be returned to him within a day or two. There was no response either from the duty officer or any one from the airport or from the Opposite Parties. Hence, the Complainant has no other option except to bring it to the notice of the Opposite Parties, by way of email on 28.12.2012. The receipt of the email was duly acknowledged by the Opposite Parties and thereafter on 04.01.2013, the Opposite Parties accepted the Deficiency in Service and also informed that the baggage was lost but offered a sum of Rs.2,800/- as compensation for the loss of one baggage. The baggage was lost due to the carelessness and negligent attitude and behavior on the part of the Opposite Parties for which the Complainant cannot be penalized for which he cannot be compensated for a meager amount of Rs.2,800/- for full and final settlement. The Complainant categorically refused to receive the compensation offered by the Opposite Parties, that too, for full and final settlement. After making clear admission in their reply dated 04.01.2013 that the baggage was lost, which is a clinching proof for the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties, they are simply referring some terms and conditions in the boarding pass/ticket, which cannot create any contract unless and otherwise there is a consensus between the parties entering into the contract. Due to the act of the Opposite Parties and Deficiency in Service, the Complainant suffered mental agony. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint claiming compensation for Deficiency in Service and mental agony and also compensation for loss of baggage with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Complaint is filed by the Complainant inter-alia against the Managing Director/Chairman. The Managing Director/Chairman is a person employed with Indigo Airlines and providing their services on behalf of the company and therefore, cannot be arrayed as a party in his personal capacity. Therefore, the Complaint is bad for misjoinder/non-joinder and is liable to be dismissed as such. All the bookings generated for Indigo’s flight are governed by Indigo’s fare rules and conditions of Carriage. “Placing the conditions of carriage on the web-site and referring to the same in the e-ticket and making copies of conditions of carriage available at the airport counters for inspection is sufficient notice in regard to the terms of conditions of the carriage and will bind the parties. The mere fact that a passenger may not read or may not demand a copy does not mean that he will not be bound by the terms of contract of carriage. We cannot therefore, accept the finding of the High Court that the term relating to exclusive jurisdiction should be ignored on the ground that the passengers would not have read it.” It is specifically denied that the Opposite Parties are liable for any Deficiency in Service and unfair trade practice. It is denied that the Opposite Parties have been providing careless and negligent services to its customers. That there is no cause of action which is subsisting as the Complainant has already been offered compensation of Rs.2,800/- in accordance with the airlines customary practice and binding conditions of carriage. The Complainant is not entitled to any compensation except what is stipulated for in the binding conditions of carriage. It is denied that the Complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,00,0000/- for any alleged Deficiency in Service or is entitled to any compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. The Complainant is put to strict proof for making such imaginary and false claims. Hence this Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

 

 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO:1

          The Opposite Parties pleaded in the written version and contended that the Complaint filed again MD/Chairman as a party in his personal capacity is bad for mis-joinder of parties and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. The MD/Chairman arrayed as party only in the capacity of representing Airlines Company and not in the individual capacity and therefore this contention is rejected, since the Opposite Parties themselves admits that one suit case was not delivered to the Complainant and the Opposite Parties offered a sum of Rs.2,800/- as compensation for the loss of baggage as per condition 9.3 of Ex.B1 Indigo conditions of carriage. This offer was rejected by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties have not delivered one baggage to the Complainant is proved and the negligent act of the Opposite Parties. The various decision referred by the Opposite Parties in written version have not been placed before this Forum for consideration. Therefore we hold that the negligent act of the Opposite Parties in not delivering one of his baggage proves that they have committed Deficiency in Service.

5. POINT NO:2

          The Opposite Parties pleaded in the written version and contended that the conditions of carriage on the website and also copies of conditions of carriage available at the Airport counters and therefore as per condition 9.3 of Ex.B1, the Complainant is entitled only for a sum of Rs.3,000/- as minimum compensation. The Opposite Parties themselves filed Ex.B2 that the missing baggage was containing 14 set, of new party and chairs with cricket bat, show, socks, teabags. However the value of the above articles is not given by the Complainant. In the absence of exact value of missing articles, one set of pant and shirt is valued for a sum of Rs.1000/- and accordingly, 14 sets of dress is valued at Rs. 14,000/- all including other articles totally  a sum of Rs.15,000/- is valued for the missing baggage. Hence we hold that the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards value of loss of articles from the Opposite Parties. Further the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs,5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand  only)  towards loss of baggage of  goods to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of  Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees  five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards  litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 13^th   day of October 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 19.12.2012                   Air ticket

Ex.A2 dated 23.12.2012                   Property irregularity Report for Missing Baggage

Ex.A3 dated 17.01.2013                   Complainant Advocate issued Legal Notice to the

                                                   Opposite Parties

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Indigo Conditions of Carriage – Annexure A

Ex.B2 dated 28.12.2012                   E-mail from the Complainant to the Opposite

                                                   Parties – Annexure B

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT