This appeal has arisen out of order dated 22.10.2013 in Case No. 274 /2011 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata-II  (Central) (in short, Ld. District Forum). By the impugned order, the case has been allowed against the OP No. 1.

            The case of the Complainant is that he betrothed and got married to Smt. Richa Agarwal and planned to celebrate the marriage by visiting Maldives on honeymoon during 12^th and 18^th December, 2010. Accordingly, his father paid Rs.1, 36,886/- to the O.P. No.2 to arrange for hotel accommodation for himself and his wife and other ancillary expenditures. The OP No. 2 acted as the agent of the OP No.1. Accordingly, the Complainant and his wife travelled by Spicejet Flight No.SG-529 and arrived at Bengaluru Airport on 11.12.2010 for onward journey to Maldives. But, on arrival at Bengaluru, he was shocked to find that one piece of baggage was missing and Baggage Irregularity Report bearing no. 35646 dated 11.12.2010 was issued by the Spicejet office at Bengaluru. The said baggage contained travel documents, passports, besides clothing and other usual items. The Maldives flight left Bengaluru at around  10.30 a.m. and the Spicejet officials could retrieve and deliver the said missing piece of baggage to the Complainant only around 6.00 p.m. As such, the Complainant and his wife were unable to proceed to Maldives and had to abort their planed honeymoon. He and his wife had to spend two days at Bengaluru at Gateway Hotel and to arrange air ticket for return journey from Bengaluru to Kolkata, etc. Accordingly, he incurred expenses of Rs.1,79,860/- for the failure of the OP No.1 to deliver the baggage to the Complainant in usual course. Accordingly, he through his Advocates M/s. N. C. Bose & Co., Solicitors & Advocates vide their letter  dated 21.01.2011 to OP No.1 demanded payment of a sum of Rs. 2,79,860/ within a fortnight, but without any response. It is a clear case in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the OPs.  Accordingly, the case.

            On the hand, the case of OP No.1 is that admittedly the check-in-luggage of the Complainant was exchanged with the check-in-luggage of another passenger, which was returned by the said passenger and delivered at the earliest possible time. So, there was no negligence and/or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. The OP No. 1 with proper diligence booked the check-in-luggage with tags with separate name and number of concerned passengers. Both the passengers have taken wrong baggage carelessly without due verification. On the request of the Complainant, the OP No. 1 contacted the other passenger, Mr. Jose, with whom the luggage was exchanged, who went to Kerala, and after coming to know from OP No.1, Mr. Jose came back to Bengaluru Airport and exchanged the bags. As per the Luggage Irregularity Report, which was signed by the passengers, the exchanged luggage contained only clothes and passport, which was delivered at 4.00 p.m. on 12.12.2010. Moreover, the Complainant has stayed for one day in Bengaluru which was of his own choice at Gateway Hotel, Bengaluru, which was pre-arranged and booked through the Travel Agent of the OP No.1 on 02.11.2011. As such, the Complainant has not spent any extra amount save and except for taxi fare for coming to Airport and back to Hotel, which was due to the negligence of the Complainant. Should he be a little careful, he would have collected his own bag and not of the other party.  It was only due to carelessness of the passengers that the baggage was exchanged. The OP No.1 took proper steps and helped the passenger to find out his exchanged baggage. Moreover, it is within the terms of the carriage not to carry any valuable in their check-in-baggage, but in their carry-in-baggage. As such, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1. So, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

             It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers any kind of anomaly so as to make an interference therein.

Decisions with reasons

            Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Appellant. It is a case of exchange of one baggage. There is no negligence on the Appellant’s part. Section 20(1) of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 stipulates that the carrier is not liable if he proves that he and his agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for him or them to take such measures. Accordingly, there is no liability of the Appellant. The baggage was immediately handed over to the Complainant on receiving it. It is the negligence on the part of the passengers, including the Respondent No.1. Even if the Appellant is liable, it is to be according to the contract. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 2508, two decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in II (2006) CPJ 43   (NC) and III (2002) CPJ 190 (NC) and also two decisions of this Commission in FA No.824/2013 and FA No.530/2012.

            Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 has submitted that the deficiency in service is evident. The concerned luggage did not appear in the conveyor belt. As a result of the mishap, the entire journey was jeopardized. He has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission III (2013) CPJ 500 (NC).

            The Ld. District Forum has gone into the merit of the case. There is nothing to intervene in the findings made by the Ld. District Forum. The Baggage Irregularity Report issued by the Appellant shows that the Complainant lost his luggage in transit.  The Complainant has suffered much during his journey for Maldives for his honeymoon and failed to board the flight to Maldives, and has to incur expenses for stay in a Hotel. Accordingly, the impugned order awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- against the Appellant is a rightful one. The order of payment of Rs. 250/- per day is an unnecessary one, which is struck off. The appellant is to comply the order within 20 days. The impugned order is thus modified. Appeal stands partly allowed.