Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/11

Shri Vijay Rathor. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jet Airways (India) Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. T.Debbarma, Miss. T.R.Shil.

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 11  of  2014

Shri Vijay Rathor,
S/O- Shri Dilip Kumar Rathor,
Skargard Vagen, 262-D, 13931,
Varmdo, Sweden,

Represented by his constituted Attorney,
Shri Pradip Rathor, 
S/o- Shri Dilip Kumar Rathor, 
Palace Compound, 
Agartala, Tripura West.            .......Complainant.

     ______VERSUS_____

      1. Jet Airways(India) Ltd.,
Siroya Centre, 
Sahar Airport Road,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai-400099,
India
(Represented by the Managing Director)

      2. Jet Airways(India) Ltd.,
Agartala Airport Office,
Narshingarh, 
Agartala, Tripura West,
Pin- 799009,
(Represented by the Duty Manager)    .....Opposite parties.
    
                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant       : Sri Tapan Debbarma and
                  Miss. Titu Rani Shil,
                          Advocates. 
                           
For the Opposite Party    : Sri Pranabashis Majumdar,
                  Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : -  27.02.15.

J U D G M E N T

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by Sri Pradip Rathor, S/o- Shri Dilip Kumar Rathor, resident of Palace Compound, North Gate, Agartala, West Tripura being the constituted attorney of the complainant Sri Vijay Rathor, S/O- Sri Dilip Rathor, resident of Skargard Vagen, 262-D, 13931, Varmdo, Sweden against the O.Ps, namely jet Airways(India) Ltd., Head Office- Andheri (East), Mumbai and the Jet Airways(India), Agartala Airport Office, West Tripura for negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps. 

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant is an Indian origin who has now acquired citizenship of Sweden. On 20th December, 2013 he travelled by Jet Airways flight No-9W 229 from Brussels to New Delhi to see his parents residing at Agartala. After arriving at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi it was detected that his checked-in baggage had been miss-placed. Then he immediately lodged a missing report in prescribed form with the staff of the O.P. No.1 at Delhi Airport. The staff of the O.P. No.1 assured him that his missing baggage would be delivered to him at his address in Kolkata within 24 hours. Then he left for Kolkata by Jet Airways flight no- 9W 7039. He had to stay in a hotel in Kolkata for 2 days as the missing baggage was not delivered to him by the O.P. No.1 within the promised time. He had all his belongings and articles  in the missing baggage. Ultimately the O.P. No.1 delivered the missing baggage to him in the hotel room in Kolkata after 48 hours. He had to incurred expenditure of Rs.17,689/- for staying in the hotel and also for purchasing his clothing and other urgent necessary articles. According to the complainant, for delayed delivery of the missing baggage he suffered mental agony and harassment which amounted to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1, for which he is liable to be compensated.

3.        The complaint was contested by the O.Ps stating, interalia, that the baggage of the complainant bearing tag no- SN 609648 was duly checked-in at Bromma Airport in Stockholm on Brussels Airlines not at Brussels as stated by the complainant and his baggage was misplaced upon his arrival at Brussels itself. Since the baggage was not handed over to the O.P. Airlines at Brussels by the Brussels Airlines, the O.P. Airlines can not be held responsible for misplacement of the baggage  and that would be evident from the printed copy of the ''not seen for transfer (NSFT) report marked as 'Annexure- B'. The complainant has intentionally suppressed the actual fact that he initially took the flight at Brussels operated by Brussels Airlines. It is further asserted that as per world Tracer Comments obtained from on line baggage system of the Airlines, the whereabouts of the missing baggage could be traced and thereafter it was delivered to the complainant within a span of 48 hours. This was happened on account of delay in transferring the baggage on Brussels Airlines from Stockholm to Brussels. It is denied that there was any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps since the missing baggage was never transferred to the O.P. Airlines by the Brussles Airlines at Brussels. 

4.        In support of the claim, Sri Pradip Rathor, the constituted attorney of the complainant, has examined himself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the documents filed by him with firisti on 14.02.14 as Exhibit-1 Series and the computerized copy of air ticket dated 06.11.13 as Exhibit-2.

5.        On the other hand, to controvert the plea of the complainant, one Sri Hiranya Ranjan Borah, the Duty Manager of Jet Airways Ltd., Pune has examined himself as O.P.W.1 as a witness of the O.P. side and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit A: NSFT report dated 20 December, 2013,  
    Exhibit B: Copy of ticket of the passenger,
    Exhibit C: World Tracer Messages.
        
FINDINGS:    
6.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
    (i) Whether the checked-in baggage of the complainant had been misplaced while he was travelling from Brussels to New Delhi by Jet Airways flight No-9W 229;
    (ii) Whether the complainant suffered inconvenience due to delayed delivery of the missing baggage to him. If so, whether the O.Ps are guilty of negligence and deficiency in service.
    
7.        We have already heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. And also perused the pleadings, documents on record, the evidence adduced by the parties  and the memorandum of written argument submitted by the complainant  meticulously.

8.        It is case of the complainant that he boarded the Jet Airways flight No-9W 229 on 20th December,2013 at 10.20 A.M at Brussels for travelling to New Delhi to see his parents residing at Agartala. From Delhi he took the flight no-9W 7039 of the same Airlines for reaching to Kolkata. On arriving at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi, he found that his checked-in baggage bearing tag no-SN 609648 did not arrive and was not delivered to him. It is suspected that when the Jet Airways flight departed from Brussels Airport for New Delhi, his baggage might have been misplaced. Immediately he lodged Property Irregularity Report (PIR) in prescribed form with the staff of the O.P. No.1. He was assured by the staff of the O.P. No.1 that the missing baggage would be delivered to him positively  by 21st December, 2013 to his hotel room in Kolkata. But the O.P. No.1 through is agent 'Dalui and Sons' delivered the missing baggage to his place of stay in Kolkata on 22.12.13 after the delay of 48 hours. It is asserted by the complainant that he had all his belongings and other valuable articles in his missing baggage. For not delivering the missing baggage to him in time he had to stay in a hotel in Kolkata for 2 days and to make arrangement for purchasing essential daily useable articles. For that matter he had to incur total expenditure of Rs.17,689/- which is to be reimbursed by the O.P. No.1.
        
9.        On the contrary, it is the contention of the O.Ps that initially the complainant travelled from Bromma to Brussels by Flight No- SN 2310 which was operated by Brussels Airlines and his baggage bearing no- SN 609648 was duly checked-in at Bromma Airport in Stockholm. This fact has been intentionally suppressed by the complainant in his complaint with malafide intention. It is averred that the baggage got misplaced upon the complainant's arrival at Brussels Airport. Since the missing baggage was not handed over to the O.P. No.1 at Brussels by the Brussels Airlines, it had been misplaced. The O.P. no.1 was not at all responsible for misplacement of the checked-in baggage of the complainant in any manner whatsoever which would be evident from NSFT(Not Seen For Transfer) report filed by him.

10.        From the Ticket Facsimile Screen (Annexure A) produced by the O.Ps it is very much apparent that the complainant initially travelled from Bromma to Brussels by Flight No- SN 2310. It is not understandable to us as to why the complainant has suppressed this material fact in his complaint as well as affidavit in chief. The reason is best known to the complainant. The NSFT report dated 20th December, 2013(Exhibit-A) which was received by the service team of O.P. No.1 at Brussels indicates that the checked-in baggage of the complainant bearing tag no- SN 609648 was not transferred to Jet Airways Flight No- 9W 227 in which he travelled from Brussels to New Delhi. There is absolutely no evidence on record on the part of the complainant to suggest that his checked-in baggage was transferred to the O.P. No.1, Jet Airlines by Brussles Airlines at Brussels airport. In absence of any such evidence on record, no negligence and deficiency in service can be attributed to the O.Ps. Had the complainant performed his journey from Bromma in Stockholm to Brussels and then to New Delhi by the same airlines, the O.P. No.1 could not have escaped from their liability of being negligent and deficient for delayed delivery of the missing baggage to the complainant. There is no material on record to show that at the relevant time the Jet Airways had a tie-up with Brussels Airlines and the Jet Airways flight in which the complainant travelled from Brussels to New Delhi was the connecting flight of Brussels Airlines Flight No. SN 2310. As it appears, the missing baggage was delivered to the complainant after  tracking out its whereabouts through 'World Tracer' Messages within 48 hours. It can not be said that there was inordinate delay in handing over the missing baggage to the complainant.
11.        In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to make out a case that the O.Ps were negligent and deficient for delayed delivery of the missing baggage to the complainant. That being so, no charge of negligence and deficiency in  service are attributable to them.

12.        Resultantly, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, we make no order as to the costs.   
   

    
 A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.