Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/939/2016

SRI.V.P.BAJPAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. SPICE JET LTD - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jun 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 04.07.2016

                                                      Disposed on: 27.06.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.939/2016

DATED THIS THE 27^th JUNE OF 2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	V.P. Bajpai, S/o Late J.P.Bajpai, Aged about 66 years, R/at No.V7 302, “Astro Rosewood Regency”, Kaikondrahalli, Sarjapura Road, Bangalore-560 035.   By.Adv.N.Ganesh		M/S SPICE JET LTD., A company incorporated under Companies Act, having its main office at No.319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122016. Haryana.   By.Adv.Josita Juris

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the Opposite Party directing to award costs of this complaint quantified at Rs.20,000/-, to immediately discontinue the unfair trade practice and not to repeat the same in future, to award punitive damages u/s 14 (d) of the Act at such sum of Rs.5,00,000/- or as may deemed just and necessary on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, to grant such other reliefs.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Complainant is aged about 66 years and retired colonel of the Indian Army; he is also a cancer survivor and has other medical complications and this tragic tale unfolded when the Complainant booked a ticket with the Opposite Party to travel from Bangalore to Chennai on 14.11.2015 with a ticket No.PNR V95H8G. The Complainant submits that he was travelling onwards to Port Blair, Andamans by the next flight, to attend the reunion of all medical specialists of his medical college batch, which included specialists of National and International repute. The Complainant also wished to use this rare gathering of eminent Medical Professional to consult them on his case along with the holiday in Andamans. He wishes to stress that this was a rare opportunity and was planned by him months in advance and he travelled in Seat 11C in Flight No.SG3302.  When he went to the baggage counter at Chennai, to collect his luggage, he was dismayed to find that his luggage was missing. All the medical records pertaining to investigation and treatment of him were in the baggage that was misplaced due to negligence of the Opposite Party. He ran from pillar to post in the Chennai airport trying to find his baggage, but all his effort was naught. He was under extreme mental distress at this point and had to continue his onward journey as per planned schedule. Upon arrival in Port Blair, the Complainant was not able to have his scheduled consultation with the eminent doctors as he did not have his medical records. Due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered discomfort that was caused to him due to the delay in the treatment as a result of negligence. The Complainant further submits that as a direct act of negligence on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant had spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards purchasing of clothes, toiletries, suitcase and other necessities. He had to purchase all the items on a daily basis as per his status. This caused the Complainant physical harassment and torture. Therefore, the Opposite Party is also liable to compensate the Complainant in this regard as well. The most unfortunate was that the Complainant was unable to consult the eminent experts, as he was mentally preoccupied and distressed as to the status of his medical records. The act of negligence also denied him the opportunity to further his career as well, as he did not have the appropriate attire to attend the networking events in the conference. During his stay in Port Blair, the Complainant was under extreme mental stress and agony, as the Opposite Party did not even bother to call him to update the status of the baggage and did not regularly update him on the misplaced luggage. As a result of being unable to get timely consultation in Port Blair due to Opposite Party employee’s negligence, he had to reschedule his treatment/further investigation in Bangalore and had to find a new doctor at considerable cost, including but not limited to appointment and fuel costs. The Complainant would also put on record the uncaring, unprofessional and negligent nature of the Opposite Party’s employee who did not even care enough to reply or even acknowledge to the Complainant e-mails. The Complainant had filed a complaint with the Opposite Party’s internal team numbered CR/373141/2015. This only increased the mental uncertainty and agony for the Complainant. Upon his return from Port Blair to Chennai on 19.11.2015, the Complainant discovered that his baggage had been sent to Kolkata due to the negligence of the Opposite Party’s Employee, and therefore, the Opposite Party’s employee has performed an act of gross negligence as he has attached the wrong tag to the Complainant’s baggage. It took 11 days for his baggage to be returned to the Complainant, but the Opposite Party employees had promised a much shorter timeline. During this whole time, the Complainant was under immense mental agony and stress, which has caused significant harm to his health. There is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party on account of the act of negligence and the unprofessional attitude displayed by not replying to his E-mails or regular updates to him on the mishandled luggage. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On issuance of the notice, the Opposite Party did appear and file the version denying the allegations made by the Complainant. It is also specifically stated that incase the passengers decides to carry any valuables in their checked in baggage, against the advice, for removing valuables like cameras, jewellery, money, electronics, perishables etc., and medication from check in baggage. The passengers will do this at their own risk and shall not hold Spice Jet responsible for any pilferage/damage/etc., to such valuables. In the instant case, the maximum baggage of the Complainant was found and returned after 11 days. Hence, it is not liable to any kind of compensation. On these grounds and other grounds, prays for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.       The complainant to substantiate his case, filed affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex P1 to P5. The Opposite Party has also filed affidavit evidence, but did not mark any documents. The complainant has also filed written arguments, but the Opposite Party has not filed written arguments. Heard both sides.

           5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

       1) Whether the Complainants proves the deficiency in service on

            the part of the OP, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief

            sought for?

        2) What Order?

                  

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1 : Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1 :   We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as version of the Opposite Party. In the instant case, missing of the baggage of the Complainant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said baggage was received by the Complainant after 11 days. The main grievance of the Complainant is that all the medical records pertaining to investigation and treatment of him were in the baggage that was misplaced due to negligence of the Opposite Party. In this context, he ran from pillar to post in the Chennai airport trying to find his baggage, but all his effort was naught. He was under extreme mental distress at this point and had to continue his onward journey as per planned schedule. Further, it is the grievance of the Complainant that upon arrival in Port Blair, he was not able to have his scheduled consultation with the eminent doctors as he did not have his medical records. Due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered discomfort that was caused to him due to the delay in the treatment as a result of negligence. It is also his grievance that he had spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards purchasing of clothes, toiletries, suitcase and other necessities. These caused physical harassment and torture. The say of the Opposite Party is quite different in the event of missing of the baggage and its liability is very limited. But in the instant case, the baggage has been traced and promptly handed over to the Complainant which took place 11 days.  When the check-in luggage has been transit to the cropter, it is its duty to look into the matter. But in this context, the Opposite Party has failed in discharging its duty as the check in luggage of the Complainant transmitted to Kolkata. When such being the fact, the Opposite Party cannot take plea that it is not responsible for the transit of the said luggage to Kolkata. Looking to the pathetic condition of the Complainant for not reaching his check in luggage to Chennai, under such circumstances, he has put into great hardship which is to be compensated in terms of money. The Complainant has stated that he has purchased the new clothes, toiletries, suitcase and other necessities. In this context, if an amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded as compensation with cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/-, we hope of ends of justice would meet sufficiently.  Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative.

8.       POINT NO.2: In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainants is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party is directed to comply this order within 6 weeks from the receipt of this Order. Failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to take proper steps as per law.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 27^th June 2018).

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

V.P.Bajpai., who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-P1	Spice jet ticket
Ex-P2	Treatment summary
Ex-P3	Medical treatment book
Ex-P4	Legal notice
Ex-P5	e-mail

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

Vijay Roy, Senior Manager-Legal., who being the Opposite Party was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

 

Doc-1	Terms of carriage
Doc-2	Letter of authorization

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT