Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1366/2017

Station Manager Air India Express - Complainant(s)

Versus

Naresh Kumar Agarwal s/o Sanwar Mal Agarwal - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishek Vyas

17 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1366/2017

 

Station Manager, Air India Express, Nehru Place Complex, Tonk Road, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Naresh Kumar Agarwal s/o Sanwarmal Agarwal r/o E 60, Girdhar Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 17.1.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. K.M.Mathur counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 8.11.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant. The matter has come

2

 

upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal is filed with delay of 5 days but looking at the reasons mentioned in the application the delay is condoned.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as per clause 8.2 of their policy the consumer was advised not to put camera in checked in baggage and further reliance has been placed on clause 9.1.3 and 9.7.1 and contention of the appellant is that claim should have been dismissed.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that consumer booked a ticket with the appellants from Jaipur to Dubai and Dubai to Jaipur. On 30.12.2010 he put two digital cameras canon and panasonic respectively in his hand baggage but as no space was there for hand baggage the appellant company took it as checked in baggages and thereafter it was found missing and the Forum below held the airlines deficient and allowed the claim.

 

3

 

The contention of the appellant as regard to condition no. 8.2, 9.1.3 and 9.1.7 are not available to the appellants as admittedly the consumer was carrying the digital cameras in his handbag but the appellant has persuade him to carry them as checked in baggage and when appellant himself has insisted for the same he could not take plea of the above clauses.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that there is no evidence to the effect that consumer was carrying camera in the baggage. This argument is totally hollow and unfortunate as the contention of the consumer is that he purchased the camera from Dubai and bills of the same have also been placed on record. Hence, the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim.

 

In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands dismissed.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm