Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/290

MS Deepali - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Munish Goyal Adv.

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 290 of 12.04.2016

Date of Decision          :   16.12.2016

 

Ms.Deepali Mutneja d/o Shri. Yashpal Mutneja, aged 25 years r/o #1340/3, Nai Abadi, Khanna, District Ludhiana(Punjba).

….. Complainant

Versus 

 

1.Chairman & Managing Director Jet Airways (India) Limited, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099, India.

2.Delhi Baggage Services, Jet Airways (India) Limited, Arrival Level, Room No.0243, Terminal 3, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi.

3.Claims Department, Jet Airways (India) Limited, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099, India.

4.Jet Airways Reservation & Ticketing Office, SCO-136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Country Inn and Suits, Ludhiana-141001(Punjab).

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant                     :       Sh.Munish Kumar Goel, Advocate

For Ops                         :       Sh.Jatinderdeep Singh, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that she purchased the ticket of flight from OPs for her journey from Guwahati to New Delhi through flight No.9W722 on 7.6.2015 with flight time of 17:30 hours, for Rs.6951. Said amount of Rs.6951/- was paid by the complainant through her saving account maintained with Punjab National Bank, Branch-Sector 16, Chandigarh. Number of that account mentioned in para no.4 of the complaint. Complainant was having a luggage bag containing Phillips hair straightner of wroth of Rs.3000/-; pair of Tommy Hilfiger Jeans of worth of Rs.2400/-; Wills lifestyle red shirt of Rs.1499/-; Puma Slippers of worth of Rs.1199/-; Track suit of worth of     Rs.1500/-; Travel kit including toiletries of Rs.3000/-; Lingeries of worth of Rs.3500/-; a torch of worth of Rs.400/-; pair of gloves of worth of Rs.300/-; a towel of worth of Rs.300/- and travel bag manufactured by Arrow of worth of Rs.1999/-. Total price of these articles mentioned as Rs.19,097/-. Complainant after reaching at New Delhi was to receive her luggage containing the above referred articles, but despite wait of two hours, she did not receive the said luggage. On enquiry made from the luggage counter, complainant got knowledge as if the luggage had not been delivered to New Delhi Airport. So, said luggage was lost in transit by the Ops. It was the responsibility of Ops to deliver the luggage to the passengers at the station of destination, but owing to breach of such contract, Ops rendered deficient services. Thereafter, complainant lodged complaint with Delhi Airport Authority bearing No.AHL DEL9W48645, but no action taken on the basis of the same. After communication through emails, Ops on 1.7.2015 offered to pay paltry amount of Rs.2700/- only in full and final settlement of the claim, but that was not acceptable and that is why, legal notice dated 30.8.2015 was served on Ops. Air tickets were received on email id of the complainant at Khanna and as such, this Forum alleged to be having territorial jurisdiction. Prayer made for directing Ops to pay Rs.19,097/- (the value of luggage) along with Rs.1 lac as compensation on account of mental agony and suffering. Rs.7000/- as litigation expenses even claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by Ops jointly, it is claimed that             OP2 to OP4 are internal management departments owned and operated by OP1 and as such, written statement filed be treated as one filed by OP1 on behalf of all the Ops. It is further claimed that complainant has suppressed the material facts. OP company alleged to be Country’s Premier International Airline, offering the finest experiences across the skies. Ms. Kirti Sarin alleged to be authorized signatory. Complaint alleged to be based on false and frivolous allegations. Loss of baggage took place during air flight from Guwahati to New Delhi on 17.6.2015 and the claim put forth is excessive one. Globally all airlines settle baggage claims by virtue of weight loss and not by value of the contents. Further, airlines are not liable for any claims qua missing valuable documents, passport etc. Passengers who carry the valuable belongings are recommended to obtain coverage under third party insurance for any unforeseen eventuality. Baggage carrying guidelines duly mentioned by the Ops along with terms and conditions on its website. Claim of the complainant is covered under Carriage by Air Act, 1972. For travelling within India, Ops maximum liability for loss or damage to the baggage is INR 450 per kilogram. Compensation of Rs.2700/- for loss of baggage of 6 kg of weight was offered to the complainant as per law, but the same was not accepted by the complainant. Liability of Ops to rise only on furnishing proper declaration by the passengers at the time of check-in baggage. No such declaration was submitted by the complainant and as such, Ops cannot be blamed and held liable for the deficiency in service. After receipt of report of loss of baggage, an investigation   to be carried out by the concerned airlines company within 14 days, but if the baggage remained un-located, then loss is declared, qua which, information is provided to the concerned passenger and finally compensation is offered as per rules laid down in Carriage by Air Act, 1972. In the event of furnishing of declaration qua items, the declared value by the complainant would have been settled by the insurance company on proof of the declared value of the lost items. The general policy in respect of paying valuation charges is available on the website of Ops. Compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and without any basis. Collection of checked in baggage from the conveyor belt of the airport is a voluntary process and no checking of the baggage collected by the passengers, is done. So, possibility of mistaken collection cannot be ruled out. Ops are not involved in any unfair trade practice, particularly, when Ops had offered Rs.2700/- as discussed above. On arrival at New Delhi airport, complainant reported about missing of one of her baggage weighing 6 kg and her complaint was lodged in the form of Property Irregularity Report. Thereafter, process for tracing the lost baggage was started by the staff. Complainant was updated properly with the information by the staff of OP airlines. As the baggage could not be traced, despite best efforts and as such, intimation of this development was given to the complainant with offer of compensation of Rs.2700/-. So, no loss or mental agony or harassment suffered by the complainant. Number of CCTV cameras are installed in the area for monitoring the movement of the passengers and baggage. Considerable efforts were made for safeguarding the interest of passengers and their baggage. Ops sent interim reply vide letter dated 10.9.2015, but   the final reply vide letter dated 16.9.2015 was sent. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 including Ex.C5/A to Ex.C5/H and thereafter, her counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.DA of Ms.Kirti Sarin, Authorized Signatory of OPs along with documents Ex.OPW1/3 to Ex.OPW3/3 and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments submitted by Ops alone, but not by the complainant. Oral arguments of counsel for the parties even addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Undisputedly, one baggage belonging to the complainant lost in transit in flight from Guwahati to New Delhi on 7.6.2015 and that is why, Ops got the investigation conducted for finding the said baggage being lost. It is admitted in written statement of Ops as well as through affidavit Ex.DA of authorized signatory that compensation for lost baggage of weight of 6 kg was offered at Rs.450/- per kg. Question of offering of this compensation arises only on admission of loss of baggage in course of transit. So, from the evidence produced on record, complainant able to establish about the loss of baggage.

7.                Complainant not able to prove that she submitted any declaration with Ops or its officials regarding contents of the lost baggage and as such, submission advanced by counsel for the Ops has force that intimation regarding contents of the lost baggage in the form of declaration never submitted by the complainant. Complainant served legal notice Ex.C2 through postal receipts Ex.C3 and even submitted record Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 to establish that she lodged report regarding loss of baggage.Document Ex.C5/A produced by the complainant itself establishes that she disclosed the weight of the lost baggage as 4 kg and little above that. In view of this declaration submitted by the complainant through Ex.C5/A, it has to be held that assessment of weight of lost baggage as 6 kg is appropriate. As per general information put on website of Ops, maximum liability for lost or damaged baggage and lost contents as a result of damage is INR 450 per kilogram. Copy of that Portal website information placed on record as Ex.OPW-2/3 and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that due offer of Rs.2700/- was given to the complainant through final reply Ex.C8 after lodging of the Property Irregularity Report Ex.C6 by the complainant. That offer made as per provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 is also the submission of counsel for Ops. The law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s Emirates Airlines vs. Dr.Rakesh Chopra bearing First Appeal No.204 of 2008, decided on 11.4.2013 is the latest law on the subject matter in question and as such, same has to be given precedence over the law quoted in para no.13 of written arguments titled as Ms.Gargi Parsai vs. M/s. K.L.M.Royal Dutch Airlines-2003(2)CPR-1(N.C.). After going through the ratio of case M/s Emirates Airlines vs. Dr.Rakesh Chopra(Supra), it is made out that Consumer Protection Act enacted to provide relief to the consumers for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice etc in addition to the remedy available under any other existing laws. Specific reference to para no.9 of this unreported case can be made. In this unreported case of M/s Emirates Airlines vs. Dr.Rakesh Chopra(Supra), it has been specifically held that that awarding of compensation of Rs.2 lac on account of deficiency in service as well as for harassment, agony and mental tension is appropriate, even if the said amount may be in excess of the one as payable under the provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972. So, submission advanced by counsel for the Ops has no force that the complainant entitled to the offered amount of Rs.2700/- alone in view of the provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972.

8.                Though, complainant in para no.4 of her affidavit Ex.CA claims that total worth of the articles contained in the lost baggage is Rs.19,097/-, but in the sent communication Ex.C5/H, it is mentioned as if estimated cost of the lost baggage is Rs.18,500/- and as such, it is obvious that the complainant blowing hot and cold regarding the exact price of the lost articles. So, by keeping in view the provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and contents of Ex.OPW-2/3, it is obvious that for the loss of 6 kg  baggage, complainant entitled to Rs.2700/- at least. However, compensation for mental harassment and agony has to be provided in addition to that and keeping in view the fact that the complainant kept on indulging in correspondence with the Ops for long as revealed by contents of Ex.C5/A to Ex.C5/H and Ex.C7, it is obvious that the complainant suffered mental harassment and agony throughout the period, she entered into correspondence for Redressal of her grievance. Keeping in view these sufferings of the complainant in mind, it is fit and appropriate to allow Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant including offered amount of Rs.2700/-. Undisputedly, no amount has been received by the complainant till date. Complainant also entitled to litigation expenses because the offered amount of Rs.2700/- is meager, when sufferings of the complainant kept in mind.

9.                It is also contended by counsel for Ops that this Forum has no jurisdiction because address of the complainant in Ex.C6 mentioned as if she is resident of Chandigarh and even ticket was purchased at Chandigarh, but the journey was performed from Guwahati to New Delhi and as such, no part of cause of action accrued to the complainant in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Even if as per pleaded case of the complainant, amount of Rs.6951/- for getting the ticket booked paid from her account with Punjab National Bank at Chandigarh and loss of the baggage took place during transit from Guwahati to New Delhi, but air ticket was received by the complainant on her email at Khanna and as such, certainly, this Forum has jurisdiction. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in case of M.D.Air Decan vs. Shri Ram Gopal Agarwal, decided on 7.12.2013 through First Appeal No.07 of 2007 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, copy of which is annexed with the complaint. Perusal of that order reveals that if airline ticket purchased over internet at a particular place and the air journey to be performed at a different place, then cause of action will also accrue at the place where the e-ticket booked. It is so because cause of action arises at the place where the contract is made or where the acceptance of contract is communicated or where the contract is performed or is to be performed or where money under the contract either payable or paid or where repudiation of the contract is received. In this unreported case owing to booking of e-ticket at Shillong, it was held that District Forum at Shillong has jurisdiction, even if the journey through air was to be performed from Delhi to Jaipur. Same is the position in the case before us and as such, in view of booking of e-ticket at Khanna, this Forum has jurisdiction.

10.              OP1 is Principal, but OP2 to O4 have acted as agents of OP1 and as such, liability for payment of compensation will remain of the principal and not of the agents. Being so, liability for paying compensation and litigation expenses held to be that of OP1 only.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed only against OP1 in terms that Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) will be payable by Jet Airways (India) Limited i.e. OP1 to the complainant for loss of the baggage as well as for compensation on account of mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant. That amount be paid to the complainant by OP1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP1. All these amounts be paid by OP1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. In case, compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, then the same will be payable with interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint namely 12.4.2016 till payment. However, no interest allowed on amount of litigation expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                      (Vinod Bala)     (Param Jit Singh Bewli)           (G.K.Dhir)

                       Member                    Member                               President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:16.12.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.