Delhi

South Delhi

cc/114/2012

RAJENDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

JET AIRWAYS INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

 

Case No. 114/2012

 

Shri Rajinder Pal Singh Kohli

BC-76  77, Mangole Puri Industrial

Area, Phase-II, Delhi-110034

….Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Manager

Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road,

Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099

 

2. The Manager

Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

Baggage Services (Lost Baggage)

Indira Gandhi International Air Port,

New Delhi.

 

3. The Vice President,

Corporate Communication &

Public Relations Jet Air House,

13, Community Centre, Yusuf Sarai,

New Delhi-110049.

        ….Opposite Party

    

 Date of Institution    : 22.03.2012      

 Date of Order            : 30.01.2023      

 

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

 

ORDER

 

 

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

 

The complaint has filed the present complaint seeking Rs. 2,64,775/- as damages along with interest at 12% p.a and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain, suffering, inconvenience and anxiety to the complainant and cost of litigation.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he along with his wife had undertaken her journey from Delhi to Amritsar by Jet Airways flight number 9W2255 on 31.12.2011 for a visit to golden temple on the eve of new year. He stated that he was carrying a luggage containing necessary articles as per list next in the complaint ranging from pashmina shawls to other things for a total of Rs.2,64,775/-.

 

2. It is stated by him that when he reached Amritsar his luggage was not delivered to him on the pretext that the said is not traceable. The complainant submitted a property missing report to the concerned official of the OP at Amritsar as advised by the official concerned of the OP.

 

3. It is a case of the complainant that even after completing the formalities and after being assured by the officials of the OP that his luggage would be returned shortly, nothing was done. The complainant had to make several calls but no positive response was received. The complainant being fed up with the different and dilatory attitude of the OP sent them a legal notice on 12.01.2012 calling upon the OP to ensure the delivery of the luggage and compensate him for the loss and injury suffered by him.

 

4. The complainant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Lufthansa German Airlines vs RBhaskaran III (2012) CPJ 746 (NC) wherein it was held that air ticket is a document of contract between passenger and airlines and it has to contain specific terms and conditions-airlines had not revealed either on the tickets or by means of any leaflet that they were issued under an excursion fare scheme or that no refund will be permitted for partially used tickets.

 

5. Complainant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble SCDRC of J&K in Jetlite Airlines vs Inder Prakash Gupta I (2011) CPJ 549wherein it was held that contention Respondent was to make a declaration before handing over luggage for checking purposes which had valuable items as per provision of act of 1972-not accepted-duty of the appellants to a certain whether such declaration under act were incorporated air travel ticket or not-no evidence that such conditions were in knowledge of the respondent-not illegality in impugned order-cost imposed.

 

6. Complainant has also placed reliance of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Emirates vs Dr. Rakesh Chopra III (2013) CPJ 500 (NC)wherein compensation was awarded on account of deficiency in service on the part of the airlines for losing and mishandling the luggage.

 

7. The OP in their reply have taken the preliminary objection that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands and are guilty of concealing facts. It is stated that the complainant being air passenger is governed by Warsaw Convention and IATA regulations and is bound by the terms and conditions of the same. It is stated that as per the said convention the liability of the OP, if any, is restricted to Rs.450 per kg in the event of loss of baggage. It is further stated that Rule 22(2)(a) And Rule22(2)(b) of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 governs the liability of the airline and with respect to the carriage of the baggage, passenger and cargo which is defined under the second schedule of the said Act.

 

8. It is stated by the OP that the complainant at the time of check in, did not declare the value and content of his check in baggage. It is further stated that in reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant, the OP had replied asking for a photocopy of the ticket as the department was unable to trace the record of the complainant but the complainant did not provide the same. On 20.04.2012 again one request was sent to the complainant seeking copy of the ticket. Copy of the reply dated 20.04.2012 is attached as exhibit A.

 

9. It is stated that the OP provides service of a highly specialised public nature and in the course of rendering search service some inadvertent event happens. The loss of baggage in the present case cannot be taken to be purposeful and uncaring towards the complainant. As per the mandate of the Carriage by Air Act, the passenger is to be paid Rs.450 per kilo for lost baggage.

 

10. The passenger is entitled to claim higher value only if at the time of submitting his baggage for transit he has declared the nature and value of the contents of his baggage and paid requisite charges on the same. It is also stated that perusal of list of articles attached by the complainant exposes the manipulations resorted to by the complainant as he has not provided any proof of purchase. It is also stated that the complainant has not given any valuation of his baggage at the time of instituted property irregularity report.

 

11. The complainant in their rejoinder has denied the contents of the reply and has stated that he has mentioned all the relevant information in the property irregularity report as per instruction of the concerns staff of the OP. He has also denied that the claim of the value of his check-in baggage is an afterthought, false and concocted

 

Both the complainant and the OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as the written arguments. It is seen from the terms and conditions filed by the OP under the heading ‘valuable articles’

Currency, precious metals, jewellery, negotiable instruments, securities, personal identification documents and other items or value are best carried with the guests in the cabin.

It is also stated in one of the rules

in the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay shall be limited to Rs.20,000/- for each passenger unless the passenger has made at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if so required. In that case, the carrier shall be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passengers actual interest in delivery at destination. The carrier assumes no liability for fragile or perishable articles.

There is no dispute that the complainant lost his baggage, as per the rules, the OP has directed the passengers to carry their valuables with them as cabin baggage. However, the complainant has not placed on record any document to prove that they were carrying the articles as stated in the complaint. In view of the terms and conditions of the OP coupled with the fact there is no dispute that the complainant lost his baggage, we direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- i.e Rs. 20,000/- per person as cost of lost baggage along with Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for the lost baggage within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs. 40,000/- would be payable with interest @ 5% p.a till realization.

Parties be provided copy of the order as per rules. File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.