ADDITIONAL PUNE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT PUNE (BEFORE :- PRESIDENT :- Smt. Pranali Sawant ) MEMBER :- Smt. Sujata Patankar ) ************************************************************************ Complaint No. : APDF/71/2010 Date of filing :- 03/06/2010 Date of decision :- 26/09/2011 1. Mr. Rajender P. Jayani, ..) Village : Daulatpura, ..) P.O. Mirzewala, ..) District : Sri Ganga Nagar, ..) Rajasthan, India Pin 335038. ..) ..) 2. Mr. Ranveer S. Jayani, ..) Lab # 11, National Center ..) For Cell Science (NCCS) ..) University Of Pune, Ganeshkhind, ..) Pune – 411 007. ..)… COMPLAINANT/S : Versus : 1. The Managing Director, ..) Jet Airways (India) Ltd., ..) S.M. Center, ..) Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), ..) Mumbai, Maharashtra 400059. ..) ..) 2. The Officer In-charge, ..) Jet Airways (India) Ltd., ..) 243/244, Century Arcade, ..) B/2, Narangi Baug Road, Off Boat Club Road, ..) Camp, Pune – 411 001. ..)… OPPONENT/S For Complainant : Himself For Opponents : Advocate Shri. B.S. Chakranarayan ********************************************************************* Per : MEMBER, Smt. Sujata Patankar //JUDGMENT// [1] The facts giving rise to the complaint briefly stated are as follows The Complainants have filed the present complaint against the Opponents for lack of service and misbehaving with the passenger. The Complainant No.2 is son of the Complainant No.1, who had booked the ticket for the Complainant No.1 travelled on a Jet Konnect flight bearing flight No. Jet Airways 9 W-2110, Pune to Delhi, Class – Economy, PNR No. IFNEZP on 4/10/2009 through www.cleartrip.com. It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant was carrying one laptop bag, one check-in bag and one handbag. It is further stated that when he approached at the Jet Airways counter at the airport, to get his boarding pass, he was told that one person could take only one hand baggage (including laptop bag). They asked the Complainant to take the laptop bag as handbag and give the other two bags a check-in baggage. According to the knowledge of the Complainant one passenger is entitled co carry a total of 32 kg baggage plus a laptop bag with him. It is also the contention of the Complainant that the woman at the counter insisted that he could carry only one bag, but the rule says that one person can carry a handbag and a laptop bag, for which the Complainant is relying upon e-mail communication, for baggage rules, with Jet customer service. The Complainant had two bags with him were 32.5 kg when weighed together, so the woman at the counter asked the Complainant to either remove the luggage since the allowed limit, according to her, was 25 kg or pay extra charges for it. The son of the Complainant tried to explain her about the check-in and hand baggage rules but she had the audacity of disconnecting the call abruptly. After that the Complainant had to come out and the Complainant removed some stuff from the bags such that the total weight was in limit. The Complainant had to remove the stuff, even if the aviation rules allowed him to take 32 kg, just because the Jet Airways staff was not aware of the rule. The way he was talked with, was very humiliating and insulting. It is also the contention of the Complainant that the ground manager was not aware of the 25 kg + 7Kg+laptop bag rule. Thereafter the Complainant No.2 communicated with the Jet Airways customer services many times and nothing was done in response to his e-mails other than a mere apology and assurance that this will not happen in future. It is also the contention of the Complainant that the Complainants are not satisfied that because this mistake by untrained and rude Jet officials had caused the Complainant a lot of humiliation and financial loss. As the stuff removed from the bag which was very expensive the Complainant No.2 had to travel to home again just to deliver the stuff and caused him to miss his office for five days. Thereafter the Complainant sent formal notice to Jet Airways. The Complainant also stated that the Complainants also received the reply by email from the Opponents. On all these grounds as stated above and as stated specifically in the complaint application, the Complainant has demanded Rs.68,000/- including Rs.23,000/- for the expenses incurred on Complainant No.2’s travel to home to deliver the stuff for removing from the baggage, Rs .20,000/- towards financial loss because of the Complainant No2’s absence from work for 5 days and Rs. 25,000/- for the mental agony, harassment caused to him in due course alongwith cost etc.. The complaint itself is supported with the affidavit of the Complainant No.1 dtd.18/6/2010. The Complainant has also filed 12 documents alongwith the complaint application, comprising flight tickets, labels on baggage, notice, e-mail by the Opponent, and other relevant documents. [2] In pursuance of the notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opponents appeared and filed its written statement and has denied the complaint. The Opponent further stated that the complaint is not maintainableas the complaint is frivolous, baseless, false with twisted description of fact and circumstances and hence denying the deficiency in service and therefore is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is also further stated that the complaint is also not maintainable as per the terms and conditions under the heading “Free Baggage Allowance (Flights within India). According to them Free Baggage Allowance (Flights within India) is as under :- Class | Adult/Child aged 2 years & above (INR Fare) | Adult/Child aged 2 years & above (USD Fare) | Infant | Premiere | 35 Kgs | 35 Kgs | Nil | Economy | 35 Kgs | 35 Kgs | Nil |
It is also mentioned that unless and otherwise specified in the fare rule, the 2 piece baggage allowance will apply on all domestic India fares for travel to / from USA / Canada subject to providing proof of such travel, failing which excess baggage charges will applicable. Excess baggage charges per kg. will be calculated at the rate of 1.5% of the Economy class normal fare Jet Airways will not accept any single piece of baggage weighing more then 32 kgs. Free Baggage Allowance is applicable only on sectors operated by Jet Airways Any baggage over the free checked allowance will be charged as excess baggage. It is also the contention of the Opponents that the conditions of carriage which is printed on the jacket of ticket is a contract between the passenger and the airline company which is a valid contract as per the International Air Transportation Agreement (IATA) rules and is binding on both the parties. The Opponent is also relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of Marine Container Services V/s. Go-Go Garments reported in 1986-99 Consumer 3861 (NS) wherein it has been held and observed that provisions of the Contract Act are also applicable before the Forum and Commissions as well. It is also further stated that as the deficiency in service is concerned, the onus of proving the same is upon the person who alleges for which the Opponent is relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India in the matter of Ranveet Singh Bagga V/s. M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., reported in III (1999) CPJ 28 (SC). The Opponent is also relying upon the another judgment Rakapalli Rajaram Sehararao reported in (1984) 4 SCC 255. However it has admitted that the Complainant booked ticket on the flight of the Opponents who issued boarding to him at Pune Airport. It is further submitted that when the Complainant approached the check in counter he was rightly informed and apprised about permissible limit of free baggage allowance to carry 25 kg of checked in baggage and hand baggage of 7 kgs by the official of the Opponents. It is also further submitted that the Complainant was also informed that articles such as laptop are allowed to be carried free in addition to the free baggage allowance (Subject To Security Regulations). Furthermore, the baggage allowances are carrier regulated and differ between other operating carriers. The plus free baggage allowance is stipulated on the terms and conditions of tickets as well as on web-site (http:/www.jetairways.com) and hence all the allegations of the Complainant are false and baseless. It is further submission of the Opponent that the Complainant was aware about the free baggage allowance to carry on the carrier of the Opponent airways (i.e. per person can carry free baggage allowance as “25kg as checked – in baggage and 7 kg as hand baggage in all 32 kg” and any additional article mentioned as per terms and condition on ticket) but the Complainant himself has stated that he was carrying 32.5 kg. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Complainant had himself written on the ‘comment form’ provided at airport on the day of journey, that he was having 3 kg excess checked – in baggage. Hence according to the Opponent the Complainant is making false and contradictory statements with the ulterior motive to extract money from the Opponents. It is further submitted that as per the records of the Opponents, the Complainant was carrying 2 pieces of bags having weight of thirty six (36) kgs (i.e. total excess of 11 kgs registered baggage allowance). It is therefore submitted that in such instances, wherein any passenger not traveling with any hand baggage, the staff proactively suggest the passenger to carry one piece as hand baggage provided it is within permissible limits. As the above said baggage was not within the permitted limits i.e. above 32 kgs, in-spite of the terms and conditions clearly mention on the tickets and web-site that “Jet Airways will not accept any single piece of baggage weighing more then 32 kgs”. The official of the Opponent had no option but to request the Complainant to reduce and re-arrange the weight to avoid any extra charges. The Opponents also submit that the said excess weight was also conveyed by email dated 5th April 2010 to the son of the Complainant in response to his letter dated March 24, 2010. The son of the Complainant has claimed that he can always contest the claim that his baggage weighed 36 kg, but neither the Complainant or his son contested the claim, nor produce anything to the contrary to show the weight of the baggage of the Complainant was not 36 kg either. Admittedly, the Complainant had two bags that were in any way in excess of the stipulated 32 kgs, and that the official at the check-in-counter asked him to either remove the excess luggage or pay extra charges for it. The Complainant could have paid the extra charges but did not do so. That undeniably the Complainant after being told of his excess baggage did remove some articles from his bag so that his luggage weight would be within the permissible limits, and was then given a boarding pass to travel. However it is not at all true or correct that the staff of the Opponent airlines was not aware of the rules or that they spoke to the Complainant in a humiliating and insulting manner. It is not true or correct that the ground manager was unaware of the luggage rules or that he tried to mislead the son of the Complainant. The Opponents have denied the rest of the contentions and stated that the Complainant put to strict proof thereof. It is further submitted that the Power Of Attorney not being duly stamped as per the provisions of the relevant stamp act and laws concerning the same, cannot be admitted in these proceedings, nor can the son of the Complainant use mis-use the same before this Forum. According to the Opponents relying on the judgment (2000) 1 SCC 66, the burden of proving the deficiency of service is upon the person who alleges it. It is clear that the deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or otherwise. The compensation claimed by Complainants besides being unjust and false, not supported with any documentary evidence, is also highly unreasonable, imaginary and arbitrary and lacks all logical basis. The Opponents reiterate that it was due to the Complainant’s failure in carrying excess baggage that he had to be informed of the rules and the terms and conditions which resulted in him having no unload some of the articles to reduce the weight and the Complainant has now sought to cover up his mistakes, failure and lapses and collect monies by alternate means, by filing this complaint. The Opponent is also relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Commercial Officer, Office of Telecom District Manager, Patna –vs- Bihar State Warehousing Corporation reported in 1 (1991) CPJ 42. That the conditions of the carriage which is printed on the ticket is a contract between the passenger and the airline company which is a valid contract as per the International Air Transportation Agreement (IATA) rules and is binding on both the parties. There is neither any deficiency in service nor any negligence committed on the part of the Opponent or any damage, loss of any kind, hardship, mental agony or harassment. It is also stated that the present complaint is otherwise also not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the claim made by the Complainant is highly imaginary, fanciful, vexatious, irrational, baseless, frivolous, speculative etc. and without any substance. The Opponent is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainants towards compensation or any other amount or whatsoever account as claimed by the Complainant on account of the alleged deficiency in service committed by the Opponent. The Complainants have failed to substantiate and justify the claim made in the complaint. All these contentions alongwith specifically mentioned in the written statement, the Opponents have submitted that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The Opponents have filed list of documents comprising copy of the baggage tags, Complainant to Customer Care, terms and baggage allowance etc. The Opponents have also filed affidavit at exh. 14 in support of the written statement. [3] On the date of hearing, the Complainant remained absent for arguments. Advocate for the Opponents have filed their written notes of arguments as also advanced their oral submissions before the Forum. We have gone through the entire proceedings, pleadings, evidence, arguments produced on the record in the complaint proceedings. [4] On perusal of the entire proceedings, the following points arouse for our consideration. Points Answers 1. Whether the Opponents have rendered deficiency in service to the Complainant? … No 2. What order ? … As per final order. REASONS :- 1) The son of the Complainant No.1 i.e. Mr. Ranveer S. Jayani, who is the Complainant No.2 booked ticket on behalf of his Father. The Complainants have filed ticket booked through cleartrip at exh.3/1 of the compilation, in which it is stated that Flight # Number Jet Airways 9 W-2210, Jet Konnect flight bearing flight No., Pune to Delhi, Class – Economy, PNR No. IFNEZP for Rs.2,481/- in the name of Mr. Rajender Jayani i.e. the Complainant No.1, which fact is also not disputed by the Opponents in their written statement. Therefore, it is undisputed fact that the Complainant is a “consumer” of the Opponents. 2) On perusal of the entire proceedings it is nowhere the case of the Complainant that during the entire journey, there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. Neither there is dispute regarding any other kind of services except the weight of the baggage. The dispute in the present case is that whether the Complainant is allowed to carry more than one laptop bag, one handbag of 7 kg and one check-in bag of 25 kg in the concerned flight . It is pertinent to note that the Complainant came with the case that the Opponents removed the extra baggage other than permitted baggage. Therefore, the Complainant has demanded Rs.68,000/- including Rs.23,000/- for the expenses incurred on Complainant No.2’s travel to home to deliver the stuff for removing from the baggage, Rs .20,000/- towards financial loss because of the Complainant No2’s absence from work for 5 days and Rs. 25,000/- for the mental agony, harassment caused to him in due course alongwith cost etc.. In this context, the Complainant has not filed terms and conditions of the baggage towards the passengers. The Complainant is demanding Rs.20,000/- about stuff whatever he removed from his luggage but he has not filed documentary evidence in support of his contentions. No details about stuff material was putforth before the Forum. As also regarding financial loss because of Ranveer’s absence from work for five days, no specific corroborative evidence brought before the Forum to prove his contentions as mentioned in the complaint application . The Opponents denied the contentions of deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents by referring various case laws. In the present case, the Complainants have not produced any single concrete document regarding carrying of the baggage for domestic journey with economy class passengers of Jet Airways. While going through the entire proceedings, we have seen that the Complainants have filed only e-mails and correspondence between the parties. It means that when the Complainants filed the complaint against the Opponents regarding baggage, it is the duty of the Complainants to prove their case with rational evidence strictly. 3) It reveals that after filing of the written statement by the Opponents, the Complainants constantly remained absent before the Forum on all given dates. Neither the Complainants filed any rejoinder-affidavit nor any additional evidence by denying the contentions of the Opponents stated in their written statement. The Complainants also did not file written notes of arguments nor argued the matter orally. 4) With the aforesaid discussions, we opined that the Complainant has failed to prove his case against the Opponents regarding how the Opponents failed to perform their part and the deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. Hence the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed in absence of reliable evidence. Therefore, we answered the points accordingly. With this backdrop, we proceed to pass the following order :- // ORDER // (1) The complaint stands dismissed. (2) No order as to costs. (3) Certified copy of this order be supplied to all the parties free of costs. (Smt. Sujata Patankar) (Smt. Pranali Sawant) MEMEBR PRESIDE NT ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PUNE. Place : Pune Date : 26/09/2011
| | [ Smt. Sujata Patankar] MEMBER[ Smt. Pranali Sawant] PRESIDENT | | 
