Haryana

Ambala

CC/274/2019

Gaganjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo Level 1 - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.Baidwan

16 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case No.:  274 of 2019

                                                                       Date of Institution :   02.09.2019

                                                                       Date of decision     :   16.03.2021.

 

Gaganjeet Kaur Baidwan W/o Shri Harpreet Baidwan, r/o H.No.547, Sonia Colony, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

 

Indigo Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehruli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, through its Manager/Managing Director.

                                                                                                         

           ….…. Opposite Party.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri H.S.Baidwan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay Rs.2944/- i.e. the cost of two premium Liquor bottles, broken in custody of the OP.   
2. To pay Rs.50,000 /- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is working as a Teacher in Ambala City. She planned a family trip, for summer vacations and chose Indigo Airline to go to Thailand. On 31.05.2019, complainant’s husband booked tickets through internet site Goibibo.com and made payment through RBL Bank Credit Card, linked with P.N.B account No.3255000110012677. Complainant left for Thailand on 17.06.2019, and returned on 23.06.2019. While coming back from Thailand she purchased two premium liquor bottles vide tax invoice No.48265 dated 23.06.2019, amounting Rs.1280/- Thai Baht i.e. INR.2944/- from duty free shop of Suvarnabhumi International Airport, Bangkok to gift the same to her relative. The flight No.6E98 from Bangkok to Delhi had a layover of nine hours at Varanasi and from Varanasi she came to Delhi by flight No.6E991. On 17.06.2019, while going to Thailand, the flight which she boarded from New Delhi to Bangkok had also a layover at Varanasi, but the OP handed over the luggage to her at Bangkok airport, but during her returned flight, on 23.06.2019, the OPs dropped her luggage at Lal Bahadur Shastri Airport, Varanasi and she also went through security check. The security personnel, stopped her and told that she cannot carry liquor bottles with her. She told the security personnel that she had purchased the liquor bottles from the duty free shop from Bangkok Airport and same are duly sealed and packed but he did not allow her to carry the said bottles with her. Thereafter, she approached the Indigo Airline counter and explained her problem to the official on duty. The said official advised her to check-in the said liquor bottles by affixing a tag ‘FRAGILE’. She left with no other alternative and did the same.  On reaching at New Delhi Airport, she received her luggage, both the liquor bottles were found broken. She immediately approached the Indigo Airline counter at I.G.I Airport New Delhi Terminal 2 and complained about the breaking of the liquor bottles and had shown the bill of the duty free shop and requested for the refund of the amount.  The OP admitted its deficiency and issued a discount voucher of Rs.2,000/-, to be used within six months. The complainant, being a school teacher can only plan her holidays during the period of long vacations and has shown her inability to use the said voucher and requested to refund the amount as per Tax Invoice, but the OP turned down her genuine request. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections maintainability, locus standi and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is stated that while check in of the baggage, no request was made by the complainant to affix a tag ‘fragile’. The complainant has failed to put on record any documentary evidence reflecting that she had requested for marking the bag as ‘fragile’. In any case, merely marking a baggage as fragile would not absolve the complainant of the risk associated with checking-in-fragile goods. It is the sole responsibility of the passenger and cannot be attributed to Inter Globe Aviation Limited. It is further stated that InterGlobe Aviation Limited endeavours to ensure that the checked-in-baggage of a passenger be delivered in a proper state. However, InterGlobe Aviation Limited cannot be held liable for the negligence and defaults of the complainant, who packed the alcohol bottles in a poly bag and kept the same loose, inside the baggage. Further, in any case, as per the provisions of the IndiGo CoC, InterGlobe Aviation Limited assumes no responsibility for damage of valuable and/or fragile goods checked-in. The provision of the IndiGo CoC, allows all passengers to carry alcohol bottles up to the allowed limit, provided the same are properly packed to prevent any leakage or damage. However, despite being duly aware of such conditions as mentioned in the IndiGo, CoC the complainant in violation wilfully carried the bottles of alcohol without any proper packaging. Due to complainant’s own negligence and ignorance, the liquor bottles got damaged. It is further stated that out of empathy and solely as a goodwill gesture towards its customer, without admission of any liability whatsoever, the complainant was offered a travel voucher worth INR 2000/- which was duly accepted her. It is further stated that the losses, if any, suffered by the complainant is solely on account of her own negligence and ignorance and in no manner can be attributed to InterGlobe Aviation Limited. Since, the complainant has already accepted the travel voucher, therefore no further remedy remains available to the complainant in the present matter. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, therefore, complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

3.                To prove his version, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavit of Shri Rahul Kumar, working as Associate General Counsel at InterGlobe Aviation Limited having its corporate office at Leval 1, Tower-C, Globe Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon, Haryana and registered office at Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi, presently at New Delhi as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 At the outset the Ld. counsel for the OP raised the objection that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, because as per the terms and conditions which govern air travel with Inter Globe Aviation Limited, because same are binding on the parties. In the dispute Settlement Mechanism’ clause, it is clearly mentioned that the Courts of New Delhi shall settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with the conditions of the carriage. The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides an alternative remedy and the complainant being a Consumer, who has booked the tickets to travel with the OP company online from Ambala, has rightly filed the present complaint before this Commission, as such the present complaint is maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission.  Since, the complainant had purchased the air tickets from the OP online at Ambala and has made the payment at Ambala only, therefore a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Merely, by mentioning that all the Disputes are subjected to jurisdiction of a particular Court in the letter of intent, jurisdiction of Court where cause of action arise is not ousted. Thus, we are of the view that the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission and the objection raised by the Ld. counsel for the OP is not tenable, hence rejected. Our view is supported by the law laid down in case In the case of Interglobe Aviation Limited Versus N.Satchidanand Vol. III (2011) CPJ 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that exclusive jurisdiction clause invalid. A clause ousting jurisdiction of Court, which otherwise would have jurisdiction will have to be construed strictly so as the clause provides that respective of the place, only Courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction, the said clause is invalid in law.  

                   On merits, the Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the security officer at Varanasi did not allow the complainant to take the liquor bottles, which she purchased from the duty free shop from bangkok, along with her while boarding the plane from Varanasi to New Delhi. On the advice of the official of the OP, she checked in the said bottles by affixing tag ‘fragile’. On receiving the luggage at New Delhi Airport, it was found that said bottles got damaged. Since, the said bottles got damaged during travelling by OP airlines, therefore they are bound to refund the cost of the bottles, but OP failed to do so.  On the contrary, the Ld. counsel for the OP argued that the OP do allow its passengers to carry alcohol/liquor bottles up to the allowed limit, provided the same are properly packed to prevent any leakage or damage. The question of not allowing the complainant, to carry the duly sealed/packed liquor/alcohol bottles upto the permissible limits by the security officer does not arise at all. The complainant had checked in the said bottles on its own for the reasons best known to her. She has not placed on record any document either to prove that the security officer did not allow her to carry the liquor bottles along with her or the official on duty had advised her to check in the said bottles. In the terms and conditions of the carriage Annexure OP1/3, under the heading ‘Valuable and Fragile Goods’ it is categorically mentioned that if the items/goods are checked in as baggage, the Indigo shall not accept any responsibility for such items carried by the customers in their Baggage. As such, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. The plea of the complainant is that at the time of boarding the plane at Varanasi, the security officer did not allow her to carry the liquor bottles along with her in the plane and on the advise of the official of the OP she checked in the same. On receiving the luggage at New Delhi Airport, it was found that the said liquor bottles got damaged/broken. Nothing has been placed on record by the complainant to support her contention. As such in the absence of any documentary evidence, the contention of the complainant cannot be taken as a gospel truth, particularly when the stand of the OP is that it do allow its customer to carry properly packed and sealed liquor bottles upto a permissible limit. Facing with this situation, we hold that complainant has failed to prove her case. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently we dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on:16.03.2021

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

                    Member                                Member                         President