BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no. 385 of 2023      

                                                          Date of Institution:  05.10.2023

                                                          Date of Decision:   06.06.2024. 

Gurlal Singh (aged about 37 years) son of Sh. Dilbag Singh Gill, resident of village Sant Nagar, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

                                                                   ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Baggage Services, West end Hotel, R C Road, Banglore GPO, Banglore, India- 560001 through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

                    ……… Opposite party.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT

      SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…… …………MEMBER

Present:         Sh. Tarlok Singh Gill, Advocate for complainant.

Opposite party already exparte.

ORDER:-

          The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as Op).

2.                 In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is resident of village Sant Nagar, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa and he usually travels by air for his business. That op is running a baggage service in collaborations with its airline services namely KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and the offices of its baggage services are located in important cities in India like Delhi, Bombay and Banglore etc. The op provides baggage services in its personal Airline. It is further averred that complainant booked a ticket of airlines service of the op for travel from Banglore (India) to Tacna (Peru, South America) and the departure date was 18.02.2023 and arrival date was 19.02.2023. At the time of his departure through the airline services of the op, his luggage was taken from complainant by the op company which was to be delivered to the complainant by op company on his arrival at Tacna (Peru, South America) and at that time of receiving the luggage of complainant from him, it was assured by the op company that op will be responsible for the luggage of complainant during the custody of luggage with them and also assured to deliver the same to him on his arrival at the arrival place. That when complainant reached at his place of arrival and he waited at Airport for his luggage for long time in queue but his luggage was not delivered by the op and he made best efforts to find his luggage there but he could not get his luggage, whereas the op company was/is bound to deliver his luggage on his arrival. That despite the requests made by complainant, the op company did not listen the complainant in the matter. It is further averred that thereafter complainant filed a complaint via email with the detail of luggage to the op company with the request to deliver his luggage as soon as possible and the op in reply accepted the fault in their services and promised to deliver the luggage after its recovery as soon as possible but op failed to do so. That thereafter complainant so many times contacted the op and requested the op by emails and physically too but op did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of complainant and ultimately complainant also got served a legal notice to the op on 18.08.2023 but to no effect. That complainant has been making all his best endeavours but all proved fruitless and the act and conduct of the op clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and as such complainant is legally entitled to get compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on these accounts from op and is also entitled to get his luggage recovered from op company. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the op through registered cover which was delivered to the op but despite delivery of notice none appeared on behalf of op and as such op was proceeded against exparte.

4.                The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the case file.

6.                The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex. CW1/A in which he has reiterated the contents of his complaint. From the Airline ticket Ex.C1, it is evident that complainant purchased airline ticket of op company for his visit from Bangaluru to Tacna (Peru, South America) for 18.02.2023 and his arrival date at Tacna was 19.02.2023. From Ex.C2, it is evident that luggage of complainant was received by op and same was to be delivered to the complainant at the place of his arrival at Tacna on 19.02.2023 but according to complainant the op has failed to deliver his luggage at the place of his arrival despite his wait for long time and thereafter also op has failed to deliver his luggage despite his several requests and despite legal notice. The complainant has also placed on file list of items i.e. one Shirt, one T shirt, one towel, four underwear, one hard disk, one mobile phone of Samsung company, kit of general accessories, two white shirts, one trouser, one track pant and one full sleeve T shirt which were in the luggage at the time of handing over the same to the op. It is also proved from Property Irregularity Report Ex.C3 that said bag of complainant was allotted tag number KL348877 by op at the time of receiving the baggage from the complainant. The op despite notice failed to appear before this Commission and opted to be proceeded against exparte and as such pleadings and evidence of complainant remained unchallenged and unrebutted. So, it is proved on record from pleadings as well as evidence of complainant that luggage of complainant containing above said articles which was to be handed over to the complainant at the Airport of Tacna on 19.02.2023 as undertook by op was not delivered to the complainant at the place of arrival of complainant and was lost by op. The op despite several requests of complainant and even despite legal notice served upon it by complainant, the copy of which is placed on file as Ex. C4 has failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and has failed to trace out and return the missing bag of the complainant. Since the op has also not mentioned the weight of the bag of the complainant in any of their documents at the time of receiving the same from complainant, therefore, quantum of compensation to be awarded to the complainant is to be adjudged by this Commission on the basis of above said items including valuable hard disk and mobile which were in the bag and also keeping in view the harassment caused by op to the complainant. No doubt, luggage is an important part of traveler in foreign land. A perfect journey through flight can get ruined if the passenger does not get his baggage. A person who lost the baggage alone will understand the value of items lost. The bag in question was containing clothes of the complainant as well as hard disk and mobile phone and we are of the considered opinion that complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of these items including bag. Further complainant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment as complainant also suffered immensely in foreign land at the hands of op and because there was deficiency in service on the part of op in losing and mishandling the luggage which caused harassment, agony, mental tension to the complainant. In this regard, the Hon’ble State Commission Delhi in case titled as British Airways Versus Stefano Pelle & anr. Appeal No. A-1036/2004 decided on 15.11.2007 has held that “It appears that this figure was arrived at by the District Forum on production of receipts produced by the respondent. Even if the receipts were not produced still the passenger was entitled to such an expenditure which on the face of it appears to be reasonable for a man handling at foreign land would incur. In our view this expenditure incurred was in terms of the rule 31(3). The passenger is also entitled for adequate compensation arising out of the miseries and emotional sufferings and physical discomfort he encounters in such a situation when everything which was required on the day and for the subsequent days was lost. Any person who is stranded in such a situation in foreign land suffers immensely.”  

7.                In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of bag of the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which op shall pay the interest at the rate of @6% on the above said principle amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                             Member                                             President                                    

Dt. 06.06.2024                                     

                                                                                        District Consumer Disputes                                                                                                                                    Redressal Commission, Sirsa.