Delhi

New Delhi

CC/38/2014

Prem Krishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Air India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jul 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.38/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

 Sh. Prem Krishna

 R/o A-74, Ashok Nagar,

 Ghaziabad, U.P.-201001                                                 ....Complainant

 

                                                         VERSUS

 

       Air India Limited

       Through its General Manager

       Customer Services

       Add. F-30, Malhotra Building,

       Janpath, Connaught Place,

       New Delhi-110001.

     

       Also at:

       The General Manager

       Customer Services

       (Air India Limited)

       Safdarjung Airport

       Aurbindo Marg,

       New Delhi-110003.                                                       ....Opposite Party

 

      Quorum:

 

      Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

      Sh. Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

                                                                                                                         Date of Institution:-13.01.2014                                                                                                                                                                        Date of Order   : -   10.07.2023

ORDER

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (in short CP Act) against Opposite Party (in short OP) alleging deficiency of services.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the daughter of the complainant Kanu Shree was pursuing MBA Programme at Kellogs school of Management North Western University, Evanson IL. She had a valid F-1 US VISA.
3. It is further alleged that at the time of boarding the flight at Chicago Airport the flight staff of OP/Air India pasted the baggage claim sticker on her passport exactly on the F-1 US Embassy Visa Stamp negligently.
4. It is further stated that during her education tour at Mumbai on 21^st March 2012, the daughter of the complainant saw that her baggage claim sticker was pasted on F-1 Visa stamp on her passport by staff of OP. The daughter of the complainant noticing the damage to U.S. Visa Stamp by the negligence of OP, approached the U.S. Visa office in Mumbai immediately but the Visa officer told the daughter of the complainant that F-1 US. Visa Stamp had been damages and she should contact U.S. Embassy at New Delhi.  It is alleged the expenses had been incurred by the daughter of complainant to the tune of Rs.50,586/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand  Five Hundred Eighty Six).
5. The daughter of the complainant was scheduled to depart on 25.03.2012 but due to the said mistake of flight staff of OP, She had to come to Delhi from Mumbai and approach the Counselor at U.S. Embassy in New Delhi on very next day morning.
6. After seeing the condition of U.S. Visa Stamp on her passport, she was advised to apply for a new F-1 Visa. That as per the advise of Counselor of U.S. Embassy daughter of complainant had to follow the instruction of Visa process  for the completion of all required formalities for getting the fresh F-a Visa and substantial expenses had to be incurred. It is also alleged that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is prayed that opposite party be directed to pay Rs.50,586/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Six) with interest.  Opposite party is also liable to compensate the complainant for mental agony for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh). The OP be also directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) towards litigation charges.
7. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP, upon which OP entered appearance and filed written statement contesting the case on various grounds inter alia that contents of the complaint, unless specifically admitted are denied.
8. It was also alleged the complaint is a misuse and abuse of process of law as it has been filed with oblique and ulterior motive to extort the money from OP.
9. It was further alleged that the Forum constituted under the said Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are invested with jurisdiction under Section 14(1)(d) of the said Act, to award compensation only for loss and injury suffered by the consumers due to the negligence of the opposite party. The provisions of the said Act are attracted only if it is established that opposite party have acted negligently and such negligence must have resulted in some loss to the person claiming damages. In other word, loss or injury, if any, must flow from negligence. Mere loss or injury without negligence cannot be compensated under the said Act. In the instant case there is no negligence/deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. As per standard practice adopted at the Chicago Airport, while checking-in,  the check-in staff sticks, the baggage tags on the back of boarding cards or on the printed itinerary or hand it over directly to the passenger. At the time of boarding, the staff deputed only requires the boarding card from the passenger. The fixing the baggage tags inside the passport does not arise, as the passport is not even required by the boarding staff. The complainant intentionally did not place on record the boarding pass dated 12.03.2012 to hide their negligence.
10. It was also alleged complaint and documentary evidence filed does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

11. Complainant thereafter filed rejoinder denying all the allegations made in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Complainant filed evidence by affidavits, however OP did not file its evidence, the OP evidence was closed vide order dated 02.09.2015.
12. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the evidence and material on record.
13. It is to be noted that under Section 14(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 compensation can be awarded only for loss or injury caused to consumer due to negligence of OP. Keeping in view that complainant did not file boarding pass to prove the negligence of OP, we are of the view that complainant has failed to establish deficiency of service or negligence of OP. The complaint stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

A copy of this order be sent to all parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

File be consigned to record room with a copy of the order.

 

 

Poonam Chaudhry

(President)

 

 

Shekhar Chandra

                                                                                                          (Member)