CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/90/13

          Date of Institution:-    14.02.2013

          Order Reserved on:- 03.04.2024

                     Date of Decision:-      07.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

VikramMalhotra

R/o 155, Vasant Enclave,

New Delhi - 110057

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

Indigo

A-252/1, Road No.6,

Mahipalpur, New Delhi – 110037

P.S. Dabri

Also At:

Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park,

Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road

Gurgaon- 122002, Haryana

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thaton 10.09.2012 he has booked a ticket from Delhi to Ahmedabad (and back from Ahmedabad to Delhi) with OP in flight no.6E161 with date of journey on 19.09.2012 and from Ahmedabad to Delhi on 21.09.2012 vide flight no.6E156. The tickets were issued by M/s Indica Travel and Tours Pvt. Ltd. The OP has charged Rs.12902.80/- for the tickets. On 19.09.2012, he reached to the airport where he handed over the baggage to the OP staff of with the directions to take care of his belongings. He reached Ahmedabad and took the luggage and found that lock is broken. The chain was damaged. The handle was broken. The entire suitcase was damaged by the poor handling by the staff of OP. The OP has refused the register the damage report though he was made to sit at the airport for two hours. The OP has reluctantly taken his property irregularity report. The valuable articles were kept inside the bag as he had to attend urgent official meeting. He was assured that his grievance will be resolved at the earliest but in vain. A legal notice dated 12.10.2012 was issued to the OP to pay compensation/reimbursement of the damage cost due to the deficiency of service on the part of OP but in vain. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OP has filed the reply through VivekSaxenato the effect that he is conversant with the facts of the case and authorized to swear the affidavit. There is no entity by the name of Indigo so the complaint is bad for misjoinder of the OP. Indigo Airlines is owned and operated by Inter Global Aviation Ltd. The complainant has suppressed the material facts. The bookings are governed by Indigo Fare Rules and Conditions of the Carriage available at Airport counters and website i.e. www.goindigo.in.The every possible assistance was given to the complainant. On 24.09.2012, the OP called the complainant and offered a compensation of Rs.2000/- in terms of the condition of carriage which clearly shows that Indigo shall not be liable for any damage caused to the valuables contained in check in baggage. The damages calculated on the basis of weight of the bag.The complainant has refused the compensation. The OP was under no obligation to reply to the notice once compensation was offered.
3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder to the written statement of OP wherein he has denied the averment of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents annexed with the complaint.
6. The OPhas filed the affidavit of Sh. AnooPKhatry, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement.
7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for theOP as no one has turned up on behalf of the complainantand perused the entire material on record including written submissions.
8. The actual name of OP is Indigo Airlines which is owned and operated by Inter Global Aviation Limited. The complainant has made Indigo as OP. To our mind, it does not make any difference if complainant has only written Indigo instead of Indigo Airlines.
9. It is an admitted fact that on 19.09.2012 the complainant has booked flight no.6E161 of OP from Delhi to Ahmedabad and flight landed at Ahmedabad Airport. Annexure-A is the e-ticket to this effect. The complainant has deposited check in baggage with OP upon which baggage receipt was issued by OP. The said check in baggage allegedly curtaining with valuable articles was found damaged as a result the matter was reported to the customer services representative of OP available at airport. The baggage irregularity report Annexure-B was issued. The OP has allegedly offered to compensate the complainant by paying a sum of Rs.2000/- which was not allegedly accepted by the complainant. The legal notice annexure-C was issued to the OP by post and courier.
10. The OP has taken the plea that terms and conditions areavailable at the counters at the airport as well as on the website i.e. www.indigo.com.in to the effect that passengers shall not carry valuables in the check in baggage and acting contrary will be at their risk. To our mind, these terms and conditions were not brought to notice of the complainant by any means that is even by sending general email or SMS message to the complainant. Such conditions should have been printed prominently on the e-ticket. The OP has not annexed any document with the reply that any such condition has been prominently printed on the e-ticket or displayed at the counter where check in baggage was deposited.
11. Nothing is brought on record by OP that declaration form has to be filed in case valuable item is kept in the check in baggage. The specific terms and conditions are not brought to the notice of complainant so OP cannot take benefit of those terms and condition even if they exist.
12. Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act says that when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon that person. In view of this, the OP should explain how the goods were dealt when it was in their custody.
13. The OP has failed to explain that due care and precaution was taken while handling the check in baggage of the complainant. The non-explanation shows that OP was indifferent and negligent while handling the check in baggage of the complainant which tantamount to deficiency in service.

14. The complainant has not disclosed in the complaint about the valuable articles kept in the baggage which were allegedly damaged. He was supposed to disclose the name of the valuable articles kept in the bag. This creates a doubts over the valuable items kept in the bag.

15. The OP has sought to settle the claim purely on the basis of notional monetary loss suffered by the complainant in terms of the internal guidelines issued by OP. The OP was entrusted with the safe custody of check in baggage to be delivered at the time of the termination of the flight. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OP in handling the check in baggage which has caused lot of mental harassment agony to the complainant. The Act has been enacted to provide relief to the customers for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of manufactures/service providers and others as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Consumer and Citizen Forum vs Karnataka Power Corporation (1994 (1) CPR 130). This act gives additional remedy along with other remedies available to the consumers. Reliance is also placed on Manu/CF/0238/2013 as well as  on Manu/CF/0930/2015.

16. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that complainant is entitled for Rs.2,000/-  damage of check in baggage in accordance with Carriage by Air Act coupled with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 07.05.2024.