Delhi

North

CC/246/2024

SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIGO AIRLINES - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.: 246/2024

In the matter of

Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma

S/o Late Sh. R.K. Sharma,

Permanently residing at 1251-Rang Mahal,

Behind Novelty Cinema, Delhi-110006                …      Complainant

Versus

Indigo Airlines

(Through its Director/ M.D./ Nodal officer authorised person)

Regd. Office Upper Ground Floor,

Thaper House, Gate No.2,Western Wing, 124,

Janpath, New Delhi-110001.

 

Head office:

Level-1, 2nd floor, Tower-C,

Global Business Park,

Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, DLF City, Phase-3,

Near Guru Dronacharya Metro Station,

Gurugram-1220001, Haryana.                     …      Opposite Party No. 1

 

Dr. Venkataramani Sumantran,

Chairman, Indigo Airlines

Central Wing Ground Floor, Thaper House,

124, Janpath Lane,

New Delhi-110001                                               …      Opposite Party No. 2

 

Sh. Rahul Bhatia,

Managing Director, Indigo Airlines

Central Wing Ground Floor, Thaper House,

124, Janpath Lane,

New Delhi-110001.                                    …      Opposite Party No. 3

 

Ms. Suman Chopra,

Senior Vice President Inflight services,

Indigo Airlines

Central Wing Ground Floor, Thaper House,

124, Janpath Lane,

New Delhi-110001.                                    …      Opposite Party No. 4

 

Sh. Sanjeev Ramdas,

Executive Vice President Customer and Operations Control,

Indigo Airlines

Central Wing Ground Floor, Thaper House,

124, Janpath Lane,

New Delhi-110001.                                     …      Opposite Party No. 5

 

ORDER

02.04.2024

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant herein has claimed compensation for delayed delivery of the baggage by M/s Indigo Airlines (OP-1 herein) upon arrival at Jaipur Airport from Delhi. OP-2 to OP-5 are senior functionaries of the OP-1 airlines, who are not engaged in day to day operation of airlines.
2. The Complainant herein is stated to be a judicial officer posted in Jaipur, Rajasthan. He, along with his family members, visited his home at Delhi for making preparations of a family wedding on 23.10.2023 at Jaipur. Accordingly, the Complainant and his family members boarded flight 6E2024 operated by OP-1 herein between Delhi and Jaipur. The Complainant and his family boarded the flight from Delhi at 08:45 PM (2045 HRS) after handing over the three units of luggage to the Airlines Check In and Baggage Counter. Upon arrival in Jaipur at 09:30 PM (2130 HRS), none of the baggages were delivered to the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant filled up Property Irregularity Report (PIR) and handed over the same to the official of OP-1 at Jaipur Airport with due acknowledgement.
3. It is the case of the Complainant that he got a communication from the official of the OP-1 on 24.10.2023 at 12:25 PM that the three baggages were located in Kolkata. The same was subsequently returned to the Complainant. In the complaint, the Complainant has alleged that he “received the bags at belatedly stage”. There is no mention of time when the baggages were received. On our enquiry, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, upon instructions from his client, could not confirm the time of delivery of the baggages. However, the WhatsApp Communication so attached and relied upon by the Complainant, indicates that the Complainant communicated his address to the official of the OP-1 at 06:12 PM on 24.10.2023. With this, we can assume that the baggage was delivered sometimes late in the evening of 24.10.2023.
4. The Complainant alleges that because of negligence of OPs in late delivery of baggages, he was subject to scrutiny and derision during the marriage function. Hence, the Complainant has prayed for a direction to the OPs, inter alia, to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
5. We have gone through the pleadings and the documents on record. First, there is no document on record to suggest that the wedding was scheduled on 23.10.2023. The Complainant has not filed copy of any wedding invite to support his claim regarding scheduled wedding on 23.10.2023. Further, for attending the wedding on 23.10.2023, the scheduled arrival of the Complainant with his family at Jaipur is at 09:30 PM (2130 HRS) on the same day, again raises suspicion on correctness of the pleading.
6. On the issue of delayed delivery of the baggage, Schedule III of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 as modified and made applicable to non-international carriage by air vide Gazette Notification No. S. O. 142 (E) Dated 17.01.2014 is applicable in the case in hand. In case of delayed delivery of baggage, the Carrier, under Rule 13 (3) of the Schedule III, Carriage by Air Act, 1972, becomes liable to compensate the Consignor if the baggage is not delivered within seven days after the date on which the consignment was supposed to be delivered. In the case in hand, the baggages were delivered within 24 hours from the schedule delivery of the baggages. Hence, even under the aforementioned rule, there is no liability of the OP as the baggages were delivered within the maximum period of seven days. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Gaganjeet Bhullar vs Emirates Airlines [IV (2023) CPJ 544 (NC)], in which Hon’ble National Commission has held that as per provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, if the missing baggage was delivered to the Complainant within 24 hours of his arrivals at destination, no deficiency in service on the part of the airline can be attributed.
7. Further, in Rajasthan Art Emporium vs Kuwait Airways [(2024) 2 SCC 570], Hon’ble Supreme Court has also relied on rule 13 (3) read with rule 19 to hold that the carrier becomes liable to compensate for delayed arrival of the cargo, if there is delay of more than seven days from the scheduled day of delivery. In the case in hand, there is no pleading to indicate that when the baggages were delivered, but based on the documents on record, we have safely assumed that the baggages were delivered within 24 hours of scheduled delivery time. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of the OPs.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself. Office is directed to return the original documents so filed along with the complaint to the Complainant after retaining the photocopies of the same for the records. Office is also directed to send a copy of this order to the parties in accordance with the rules. Thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member