BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

     DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020    

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1055/2019

PRESENT:                                                          

Sri.K.S.Bilagi, B.com, M.A., LL.M.….   PRESIDENT

Smt.L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.….     MEMBER

Mr.Ajay S/o. M.K.Sasidharan Pillai,

Aged about 24 Years,

R/at:C.72/1, Agency House Colony,

Near Radha Soami Satsang,

Port Blair.

Also at No.650,

Domlur, Bengaluru-560071.

(Rep by Sri.Prasad Subbanna and others, Advocate)

V/s

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. Indigo Airlines,

Having its Head Office at,

Level 1, Tower C,

Global Business Park,

Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road,

Gurugram-122002, Haryana,

Rep by its Customer Relations Officer.

2. Indigo Airlines,

Having its Registered Office at,

Indigo Airlines, Central Wing,

Grounds Floor, Thapar House, 124,

Janpath, New Delhi-110001,

Represented by its Customer Relations Officer.

3. IndiGo Airlines,

Having Airport Office at,

No.10, Kempegowda International Airport,

Sulibele Road,

Devanahalli, Bengaluru-562110,

Represented by its Customer Relations Officer.

(Opposite Parties Rep by Sri.C.K.Nandakumar., Adv)

WRITTEN BY SRI K.S.BILAGI., PRESIDENT

******

//ORDERS ON MERIT//

1. The complaint has been filed under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and other reliefs.

2. The case of the Complainant in brief is as under:

The Complainant had booked his flight through the Airlines operated by the Opposite Parties from Port Blair to Thiruvananthapuram and travel itinerary from Port Blair to Bengaluru on 10.01.2019. The departure timing was 07-35 hours and arrival at Bengaluru at 10.20 hours and his onward journey to Thiruvananthapuram from Bengaluru was on 10.01.2019 through flight No.6E-522 departure time at 13-40 hours and arrival at Thiruvananthapuram at 14-50 hours.

3. It is further case of the Complainant that the Complainant arrived at Kempegowda International Airport to catch flight to Thiruvananthapuram and he noticed that flight No.6E-522 was cancelled.  At the time of boarding, the flight at Port Blair the Complainant had checked in his baggage and affixed to the boarding pass for the flight from Bengaluru to Thiruvananthapuram.  Accordingly, he was not supposed to collect the baggage at Bengaluru before boarding the connecting flight to Thiruvananthapuram.  After seeing the information screen, he approached the staff of Opposite Party No.3 and got the confirmation about cancellation of flight to Thiruvananthapuram.  When he asked for his baggage where he had kept all his original documents like birth certificate, local certificate, class X and Class XII CBSE Board Mark List and Pass Certificate and other education qualification certificate in the Baggage.  But he could not get the baggage with Certificates.  The Opposite Parties had offered compensation of Rs.4,200/-.  But he gave a complaint to the Police.  The Complainant being the Engineer Graduate suffered lot of inconvenience for want of his education documents due to the deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence, this complaint.

4. After receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared and filed version.  The Opposite Parties deny the contention of the Complainant that except the facts which are specifically admitted.  The Complaint suffers from various contravention of legal principles. There is no deficiency of service/negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties had acted in accordance with applicable law and the binding conditions of carriage.  They denied that the baggage of the Complainant had contained his school records.  As per Carriage by Air Act 1972, the responsibility and liability of airlines is statutorily limited upto Rs.20,000/-.  The Complainant failed to produce the records that the staff of Inter Globe Aviation Limited had offered an amount of Rs.4,200/- as compensation.  The Complainant has not disclosed the true and correct facts.  The complaint is not maintainable.  The Complainant has deliberately concealed the fact that the IndiGo Flight No.6E-522, from Bengaluru to Thiruvananthapuram was cancelled on account of closure of the runway at Bengaluru.   Inter Globe Aviation Limited offered a compensation of Rs.4,200/- to the Complainant.  The complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties.  The Complainant is not entitled to any compensation.  The Opposite Parties request this Commission to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

5. The Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on 7 documents.   The Opposite Parties have produced affidavit evidence of its official and relied on 5 documents.  Heard the arguments of both side and perused the written arguments and citations.  

6. The points that arise for our determination are;

1. Whether the Complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service, negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs claimed in the complaint ?

3. What order? 

7. Our findings on the above points are:-

 POINT NO.1 & 2: Affirmative in part

 POINT NO.3: As per the final order for the following;

8. POINT NO.1 & 2:- At the first instance, we would like to refer the facts which are not in dispute. The Complainant being the resident of Port Blair and Bengaluru purchased Air ticket on 10.01.2019 to travel from Port Blair to Bengaluru and Bengaluru to Thiruvananthapuram.  This fact has been proved from EX.P1 to P3 Air tickets.  Due to none availability of runway, the flight No.6E-522 came to be cancelled and the Complainant noticed loss of his baggage in Bengaluru Airport.   Therefore, the correspondences through email were made between the Complainant and Opposite Parties including legal notice, as could be seen from EX.P5 & P6.

9. It is one of the contentions of the Opposite Parties that this Commission has no jurisdiction and Court/Tribunal or Forum at Delhi alone has jurisdiction.    He took us through the recitals of the documents which indicates that all disputes arising out of, or in connection with carriage shall be settled by the court of Delhi, who have to hear the matter in relation to these conditions of the carriage.  It is pertinent to note that Port Blair, Bengaluru and Thiruvananthapuram are faraway places from New Delhi.  Moreover, the Opposite Party No.1 office is in Hariyana State and office of Opposite Party No.3 is at Bengaluru.  The Complainant came to know about loss of his baggage in Bengaluru Airport when the flight was cancelled due to shortage of runway.  Therefore, this Commission at Bengaluru has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Accordingly, the 1^st submission of Opposite Parties that the court alone at Delhi has jurisdiction is rejected. 

10. It is also argued by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the complaint requires to be dismissed for perjury and Complainant failed to establish that he is the valid consumer as per law.  In support of his argument, he places reliance on (1995) 2 SCC 150 Consumer Unity and Trust Society V/s The Chairman & Managing Direct, Bank of Baroda, (2000) 1 SCC 66 Ravneet Singh Bagga V/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another, (2009)4SCC 684 Bhubaneshwar Development Authority V/s Susanta Kumar Mishra.  He also argues that the Complainant failed to establish that the alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.  He also took the Commission to EX.R3 Government Notification with regard to “valuable and fragile goods” which reads thus;

“Customers are strongly advised not to check in such items as Baggage which by their very nature is valuable and/or fragile.If such items are checked in as Baggage.Customers agree that they send for carriage of such items, at their own risk.Such items include, without limitation, money, jewellery, silverware, electronic devices, medicines, perishable goods, computers, cameras, video equipment negotiable papers, securities and/or other valuables, passports and other identification documents, title deeds, artefacts, manuscripts and the like.

IndiGo shall not accept any responsibility for such items carried by the Customers in their Baggage.

In case if the Customer’s Checked-in Baggage is spoilt due to spillage or leakage of glass bottles/jars unsuitably packed.IndiGo’s liability for damage is not extended to the same.

Items like money, jewellery, photographic/video & or other optical equipment, computers and other electronic equipment, computer software, silverware, glassware, securities, bonds, business and personal documents, samples, paintings, artifacts, other work of art, antiques, research, unique or irreplaceable items, scholarship items/documents, irreplaceable books or publications or similar valuable items are not covered under any loss or damage policy of IndiGo.These items should not be transported in or as a luggage on an IndiGo flight”.

He also refers damage to Baggage that at the most Opposite Parties liable to pay Rs.350 per kg and 15 kg only and not more than Rs.4,750/-.

Damage to Baggage

Liability for loss, delay or damage to Baggage is limited under the provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and the rules framed thereunder with certain exceptions, adaptations, modifications etc. as notified by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, and as amended from time to time.

IndiGo’s liability for damage to Baggage will be reduced by any negligence on part of the Customers, which causes or contributes to the damage in accordance with applicable law.

Customers are solely responsible for carriage of their hand bag/personal belongings and IndiGo will not be liable for any loss/damage of their hand baggage/personal belongings.

IndiGo’s liability for loss or damage to Baggage is INR 350/kg”

However, IndiGo assumes no liability for fragile or perishable articles.IndiGo shall have no liability whatsoever for damage to articles not permitted to be contained in Checked Baggage as per the provisions of the Conditions of Carriage (including, without limitation, fragile or perishable items, items having a special value, such as money, jewellery, precious metals, computers, personal electronic devices, negotiable papers, camera, TV, securities, or other valuables, business documents, passports and other identification documents).

IndiGo will not be liable for any damage arising from IndiGo’s a compliance with applicable laws or Government rules and regulations or from the Customer’s failure to comply with the same.

*limited to a maximum of INR 20,000/- only.Other conditions as per the Act apply

The Customer shall be responsible for any damage caused by the Customer’s Baggage to other persons or property, including IndiGo’s property and IndiGo will not be liable to any third person for any damage caused by the Customer’s Baggage.

IndiGo will not be liable for any damage arising from IndiGo’s compliance with applicable laws or Government rules and regulations or from the Customers’ failure to comply with the same.

11. It is admitted by the Complainant and Opposite Parties that the Opposite Parties have offered Rs.4,200/- as one time compensation for loss of baggage.  The loss of baggage has been directly admitted by both parties.  If really there is no loss of damage what made the Opposite Parties to offer one time compensation of Rs.4,200/- to the Complainant.

12. In order to avoid unnecessary discussions and other decisions relied by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, it is relevant to refer memo filed on 16.10.2020 by the counsel for the Complainant.  On 16.10.2020 the advocate for the Complainant filed a memo stating that the Complainant orally informed the Advocate that the lost documents were found on 10^th September 2020 at Thiruvananthapuram.  It means the Complainant has received all the lost documents referred by him in the complaint on 10^th September 2020.  Therefore, there is no need to go into the details about the following decisions. 

1. 1994(1) SCC 1 Chengalvaraya Naidu V/s Jagannath.
2. 2010 (4) SCC 728 Oswal Fats & Oils Limited V/s Commr(Admn).
3. R.P.No.1004/2018 Indigo Airlines & Another V/s Astha Pansri.
4. R.P.No.2001/2016 InterGlobe Aviation Limited V/s Manish Nagpal.
5. IV(2016)CPJ 304(NC) 2016 SCC online NCRC 1648 Rajeev Malik V/s KLM Royal Dutch Airliens.
6. II (2012) CPJ 559 (NC) Shiv Garg V/s Lufthansa German Airlines.
7. 2017(7) SCC 463 M/s Interglobe Aviation Limited V/s N.Satchidanand.

13. It has been proved that the Complainant handed over baggage with documents to the officials of Opposite Parties, but the carriage conditions of Opposite Parties clearly indicate that the customers are strongly advised not to check any valuable items check in baggage.  Even presuming for the sake of argument that the Complainant despite such terms and conditions handed over the check in baggage containing valuable certificates, marks card etc.  At the most the Complainant was negligent in not reading conditions of carriage.  But, it does not mean that the Opposite Parties cannot take shelter under the conditions i.e., valuable and fragile goods to shirk its responsibility for loss of baggage.  In case of loss of the baggage, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay only Rs.350/- per kg of 15 kg i.e., Rs.4,750/-.  It is admitted fact that the Opposite Parties have tendered only for Rs.4,200/- to the Complainant as compensation for loss of baggage.  There is no record to show that the Opposite Parties have paid either Rs.4,200/- or Rs.4,750/- to the Complainant.  The loss of baggage is dt.10.01.2019 and baggage with certificates came to be handed over to the Complainant only on 10.10.2020.  There is a delay for tracing the baggage and documents of the Complainant.  Due to the negligence and deficiency of service, the Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,750/- only and Complainant is not entitled to any compensation more than Rs.4,750/-, in view of the terms and conditions relied by the Opposite Parties and decisions referred above. In view of handing over the certificates and documents to the Complainant on 10.10.2020, it is just and proper to award Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.  Thereby the Complainant is entitled to Rs.9,750/- only.

14. POINT NO.3:- In view of the above discussions, the complaint requires to be allowed in part.  The Opposite Parties are liable to pay Rs.9,750/-.  We proceed to pass the following:

-:ORDER:-

           The complaint is allowed in part. 

The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.4,750/- as compensation as per terms and conditions and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation i.e., Rs.9,750/- only. 

The Opposite Parties are liable to pay this amount within 60 days from the date of this order.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by the open Forum on 13^th day of November 2020)                                            

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

1. Ajay, who being the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Copy of the E-ticket booked on 05.01.2019.
2. Two boarding passes.
3. Copy of the property irregularity report which was given to the Complainant.
4. Copies of e-mail communication.
5. Copy of the legal notice dt.09.06.2016 got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties through advocate.
6. Postal receipts.
7. Track consignment details of the postal department in respect of the legal notice sent.
8. Certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Witness examined for the Opposite Party side:                   

Sri.Rahul Kumar, Associate General Counsel of the 1^st Opposite Party has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

1. Copy of the certificate of incorporation issued by Ministry of Affairs, Government of India dt.11.08.2006.

2. Copy of the document containing conditions of carriage stipulated by the Opposite Party.

3. Copy of the document title comment summary which are at ink page No.71 and 72.