BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No  318 of 2015

            Date of Institution: 19.5.2015

           Date of Decision:18.12.2015

Mr. Parminder Singh aged 40 years s/o Sh. Kanwal Jit Singh R/o 80, Kennedy Avenue, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. Jet Airways having its Local Office at Guru Ram Dass Ji International Airport, Rajasansi,Amritsar through its Branch Head.
2. Gajaanan Holidays, SCO 112, Ist Floor, Adjoining Hotel Alstonia, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Principal Officer

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate

                For the Opposite Party No.1      : Sh.Ajay Mehta,Advocate

               For opposite party No.2    : Ex-parte

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Parminder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein  that  he got booked his air tickets  from opposite party No.2 for the flight of opposite party No.1 from Amritsar to Delhi on 29.3.2015 and from Delhi to Amritsar on 5.4.2015. According to the complainant while travelling on 5.4.2015 on the flight of opposite party No.1 , he got his luggage handed over to  opposite party No.1 at Delhi. On reaching Airport at Amritsar, at the time of delivery of his luggage, the complainant found that his bag was badly damaged with clear intention of stealing material kept inside the said baggage . The complainant made a protest with opposite party No.1 at Amritsar Airport and lodged complaint with them.  Complainant has alleged that the cost of two perfumes  missing alongwith the gift packs was 690 Dhs  and the cost of baggage was Rs. 8500/-  . The complainant approached the opposite party so many times to pay this claim, but the opposite party neither gave any reply to the complainant nor paid the amount of the baggage. Alleging the same to be deficiency  in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite  party to pay the claim of 690 Dhs or equivalent to the said amount in Indian Currency and to pay Rs. 8500/- as cost of the bag alongwith interest . Compensation  and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that  no such complaint was ever lodged by the complainant with the opposite party and has filed the present complaint due to the reasons as the opposite party charged extra amount of R. 4200/- for excess weight carried by the complainant, copy of receipt is dated 5.4.2015. It was denied that there were several other articles in the said baggage  which were missing.  It was submitted that if any damage was caused to the baggage as alleged, the complainant has to prove  the same. The terms and conditions applicable to baggage clearly indicates that the opposite party is not responsible for the damage resulting from over packing in the baggage and fragile items packed in the checked baggage. As the perfumes bottles  are certainly fragile items, hence, opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any alleged compensation. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 9.7.2015.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Varun Suri Ex.OP1/1, copy of excess baggage receipt Ex.OP1/2, copy of damage baggage allowance  Ex.OP1/3, copy of ticket Ex.OP1/4.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the  parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got booked Air tickets of opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 from Amritsar to Delhi on 29.3.2015 and from Delhi to Amritsar  on 5.4.2015 Ex.C-2 and during this period from 29.3.2015 to 5.4.2015 the complainant alongwith his family members were to travel to Dubai . The complainant while travelling on 5.4.2015 on the flight of opposite party No.1 got his luggage handed over to  opposite party No.1 at Delhi. On reaching Airport at Amritsar, at the time of delivery of his luggage, the complainant found that his bag was badly damaged with clear intention of stealing material kept inside the said baggage . The  complainant lodged complaint with opposite party No.1 Ex.C-3 and made claim of two perfumes  (gift packs) missing alongwith the gift packs costing  690 Dhs and for the totally damaged baggage which costs Rs. 8500/- as per bill/invoice Ex.C-4. The complainant alleged that certain other articles were also missing. But the complainant  could not mention the same in the complaint  Ex.C-3. The complainant approached the opposite party so many times to pay this claim, but the opposite party neither gave any reply to the complainant nor paid the amount of the baggage and the missing articles in the baggage  when the baggage was in the custody  of the opposite party No.1. Ld.counssel for the complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant carried three baggages,  their weight was excess and he paid Rs. 4200/- for extra baggage charges, the copy of the receipt issued to the complainant is Ex.OP1/2. As per terms and conditions applicable to the baggage, the opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the damage resulting due to over packing in the baggage and fragile items packed in the baggage are not covered by opposite party No.1. So opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any alleged compensation to the complainant. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has obtained return ticket Ex.C-2 for flight of opposite party No.1 from Delhi to Amritsar on 5.4.2015 . While travelling from Delhi to Amritsar on 5.4.2015, the complainant handed over his baggage to opposite party No.1 .When at Amritsar Airport the complainant received the baggage, he found the bag was  badly damaged. He further found that two  items i.e. two perfumes (gift packs)  as the complainant had been returning from Dubai, missing costing 690 Dhs. The baggage was badly damaged , the cost of baggage was Rs. 8500/- as per invoice Ex.C-4 dated 21.3.2015. The complainant lodged complaint on the performa given by opposite party No.1 at the spot Ex.C-3 in which he has categorically mentioned the missing of two perfumes from the baggage costing 690 Dhs, both were gift packs given by the relatives of the complainant at Dubai and the bag was badly damaged costing Rs.8500/-. But the opposite party No.1 neither made any enquiry in this regard nor made any effort to find out the culprit , who has done so i.e. caused damage to the baggage of the complainant and stole the articles from that bag of the complainant as all this happened to the baggage of the complainant when the same was in the custody of opposite party No.1. So opposite party No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by the complainant in the baggage when the same was in the custody of opposite party No.1 as all this happened  due to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
10. As regards damage/loss suffered by the complainant, the complainant has produced bill of his bag Ex.C-4  which fully proves that he purchased this bag on 21.3.2015 before starting his journey on 29.3.2015 and the bag was badly damaged when it was in the custody of opposite party No.1. So opposite party No.1 is liable to refund this amount of Rs. 8500/- to the complainant.
11. As regards the value of the two perfumes missing/stolen from the bag of the complainant, the complainant has simply mentioned their price as 220 Dhs and 470 Dhs ; total 690Dhs, but the complainant neither mentioned the brand of the perfumes nor produced any bill to prove the price of the perfumes. So the complainant is held entitled to Rs. 10000/- as the price of the aforesaid two perfumes stolen from the baggage of the complainant when the same was in the custody of the opposite party  No.1.

  12.  So opposite party No.1 is held liable to pay Rs. 18500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of              the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to            the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.                Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

18.12.2015                                                           ( Bhupinder Singh )                                                                                                                                                                                                     President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                        Member