View 1209 Cases Against Air India
Dr. R.K. Agarwal filed a consumer case on 29 Oct 2015 against M/S. Air India in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is EA/158/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 05 Nov 2015.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI
(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR,
VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110002.
Case No.EX/158/12 Dated:
In CC/781/2011
In the matter of:
Dr.P.K. Agrawal
A-602, Priyadarshini Apartments
17, I.P. Extension
Delhi-110092,
……..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Managing Director , Air India
National Aviation Company of India Ltd.
Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road
New Delhi-110001
……. OPPOSITE PARTY
ORDER
President: C.K Chaturvedi
The Complaint of Dr. P.K Agrawal, for deficiency of OP Airlines, is not sending his booked luggage from Delhi to Kolkata, and return of the baggage to him, on his return to Delhi was decreed vide order of this Forum on 07.02.12. The case was fully adjudicated after considering the written reply of OP, as OP did not participate after filing reply. The facts mentioned in the order of 07.02.12 are taken as part of this order and are not repeated.
The OP did not comply with the final order and went in appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission, and got the matter remanded for fresh hearing on the ground that, OP was not aware of the date of hearings on 24.01.12 for evidence of OP.
Now after the re-hearing, OP has filed affidavit of evidence, in support of its earlier reply. We have considered the affidavit dated 04.04.14 and additional affidavit 05.05.14, and heard the arguments.
The affidavit by Monica Thukral, dated 04.04.14, while admitting non-sending of luggage in the flight due to its no loading at Delhi Airport by OP, stated that complainant has not disclosed the contents of baggage weighing 29 kg and not paid any supplement value charges for the declaration. The affidavit admits that baggage reached at Kolkata on 13.03.11, which was informed to complainant, who wanted it to be delivered at Delhi Airport, which was delivered, and therefore he did not suffer any loss or damage, and for delay OP will pay as per policy only 50% of the amount towards purchase of casual/formal dress etc., subject to max. of Rs.2,000/-. It relied on conditions of contract Exh.OPW1/1, to say what baggage should not contain and that it was not liable as per Exh.OPW1/2 for delay in carriage of air passenger or baggage. It stated that this flight A1 O22 of 11.03.11, departed from Delhi with little delay and all services were provided by OP.
The additional affidavit gives reason for delay of flight no.A1 O22 of 11.03.11.
The Complainant has filed a reply to evidence submitted and described above. He has reiterated that he and his wife had to wait for 45 minutes to get two boarding cards issued, there was negligence of issuing boarding pass for domestic ‘D’, while he had to travelled by A1 O22. The reasons of delay were not annexed, and gate was changed. That the baggage was unnecessarily sent first to Kolkata and then again to Delhi which reached Delhi by flight A1023 of 14.03.11, and delivered to his house on 15.03.11.
We have considered the entire case again along with the evidence now produced & submissions made. Whatever be the reason of delay of flight, the complaint is not mainly about delay, but of deficiency of OP in not properly helping/assisting or informing the passengers, or to so conduct their affairs that they are least inconvenienced. The entire wait for boarding pass, change of gate and non-loading of luggage, and not contents of luggage are at issue. The conference papers cannot be carried in hand, which has led to total embarrassment to Sr. Officer of Govt. and family anxiety, efforts time & energy wasted in looking for luggage, rather than concentrating on the work for which he flew from Delhi. The location of missed baggage is a solace, but cannot compensate for the loss of purpose of visit undue harassment, anxiety to family the taking away of loss due for missed luggage.
The evidence of OP does not in any manner help the OP’s case nor does it affect the case of the Complainant.
We do not find any material to detract us from the detailed deficiencies and our reasoning to award compensation earlier granted. The whole old order dated 07.02.12 read as part of this order for fact and discussion and reasoning and awarded amount. We cannot take any other view, even after considering the evidence filed by OP, by way of two affidavits.
In the circumstances, we allow as under:
In order to close the matter, we drop the punitive compensation part of the earlier order. We direct OP to pay the above amounts with interest of 9% from date of original order 07.02.12 till payment to be paid in 30 days.
The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced in open Court on 29.10.2015.
(C.K.CHATURVEDI)
PRESIDENT
(Ritu Garodia)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.