Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/324/2015

Spice Jet Airlines Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajeshwar Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Punj

14 Jan 2016

ORDER

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	324 of 2015
Date of Institution	30.11.2015
Date of Decision	14.01.2016

 

Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon – 122 016.

                                …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

                                Versus

1.        Mr.Rajeshwar Singh, S/o Late S.Swinder Singh Kamal, r/o H.No.693, Phase 6, Mohali, Punjab.

                       

                        …..Respondent No.1/Complainant.

 

2.        M/s Pack Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., SCO-15, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

                        …..Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.3.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Amit Punj, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondent No.2.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.09.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.73 of 2015, filed by the complainant, with the following directions:-

“12.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and have indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to:-

 [a]  To refund the amount of Rs.1500/-on account of broken baby pram;

 [b]  To refund Rs.3000/- paid extra for Spice Max for the priority luggage;

 [c]  To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 [d]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

           The Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed.

 13.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] to [c] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [d] above. “

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the  complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.3 for consultation and arranging the tour/trip to Goa. Thereafter, the complainant booked air tickets through Opposite Party No.3, in the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, for Delhi-Goa-Delhi from 16.06.2014 to 21.06.2014. It was stated that four tickets of the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 from Delhi-Goa-Delhi were booked and confirmed, for which, the complainant paid  an amount of Rs.45,000/-. It was further stated that boarding passes were issued to the complainant on 16.06.2014 from Delhi to Goa and back for 21.06.2014. It was averred that the complainant had carried with him a baby pram for the comfort of his minor child, aged 11 months and for that he had paid extra amount of Rs.3,000/- and his luggage was given/tagged a priority pass. It was further averred that on 21.06.2014, when the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 reached Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the complainant and his family found their luggage missing and were held up for hours at the airport and to their surprise, the luggage which was supposed to be given priority (being a Spice Max) in unloading reached at the last and the baby pram reached with the breakage (Annexure C-8), due to which, he had to face a lot of physical harassment. Thereafter, a complaint was also lodged by the complainant at the Spice Jet Desk at New Delhi Airport i.e. Opposite Party No.2, but to no avail. It was further stated that a number of e-mails were sent to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to compensate him for their aforesaid acts, but they refused to do so. Therefore, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.             In their written statement, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, stated that the baby pram was handed over to the complainant in the same condition, as it was given. It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the carriage, Spice Jet cannot be held liable for wear and tear to luggage (scratches, torn zippers, straps, wheels, handles, scuffs, dents, soiling or manufacturer defects). It was pleaded that the luggage was handed over to the complainant according to the schedule on the same day. It was further pleaded that the Spice Jet’s officials tried their best to assist the complainant and replied to his every query. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             In its written statement, Opposite Party No.3, stated that it being a Travel Agency had fulfilled the requirements of the complainant, as desired by him i.e. made his ticket booking and reservation and, thereafter, it had no role to play in the entire episode. It was further stated that in the entire complaint, there were no specific allegations against it. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.             The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. 

6.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for respondent No.1, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.           After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

11.           The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there was any negligence on the part of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant sought compensation of Rs.2,15,500/- before the Forum but the Forum while passing the impugned order failed in not appreciating the fact that the claim of compensation, qua damage caused to the baggage is limited and the same, in any case, cannot exceed the maximum limit prescribed in the Carriage by Air Act or the terms and conditions mentioned in the E-ticket. He further submitted that the limited liability can be only incurred on the airlines in case the baggage is lost and cannot be held liable for any fragile luggage or any wear and tear, and, therefore, no question arises of any liability towards Spicejet in this case. He further submitted that the said baggage was handed over to the complainant in the same condition as it was given to the officials of Spice jet during check-in. So, there was no fault on the part of Spicejet, as alleged by the complainant. According to the Counsel for respondent No.1/ complainant, when the complainant alongwith his family reached at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, he found that luggage, which was supposed to be given priority (being a Spice Max) was missing and the complainant had received the baggage late inspite of having booked the tour through Spice Max Scheme and also baby pram received after delay, was in torn and damaged condition at the time of receipt of the luggage at the airport. Admittedly, the complainant booked air tickets in the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 , through Opposite Party No.3, for Delhi-Goa-Delhi from 16.06.2014 to 21.06.2014, for which, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.45,000/-, as stipulated from the receipt dated 02.06.2014 (Annexure C-2). It is also evident from the receipt (Annexure C-3) that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.39000/- (Rs.36,000/- on account of hotel bookings and Rs.3000/- for up-gradation in flight). The Boarding passes were also issued to the complainant, as is evident from Annexures C-5 and C-6. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had carried a baby pram with him for the comfort of his minor child, aged 11 months.  Moreover, it is not a case where only luggage was damaged but also the complainant and his family had suffered a lot at the hands of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 because the complainant had paid an extra amount of Rs.3000/- (Annexure C-3) and the baggage was given/tagged a priority pass (Annexure C-7 and C-8). The complainant was harassed at the airport by keeping them (alongwith their minor child) waiting for many hours and handing over torn and damaged baby pram, resulting in discomfort to a 11 month old child.  Moreover, the complainant had received the baggage very late inspite of having booked the tour through SPICE MAX Scheme. The photographs of the baby pram (Annexure C-8) clearly show that the same was in damaged condition. It is not only the case of mishandling of luggage by the staff of the appellant but also carelessness on their part because when the complainant paid the extra amount of Rs.3000/-, it was the duty of the staff of the appellant to provide the luggage of the complainant on priority basis but it did not do so and compelled the complainant to wait for many hours at the airport with minor child, without a baby pram and when he received the baby pram, it was in damaged condition. The complainant also lodged a complaint with the Authorities (Annexure C-10) immediately, after the arrival of his luggage and baby pram, but to no avail. Even, a number of emails were also exchanged between the parties but the appellant Company did not pay any heed. So, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Company.

12.           Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Forum was right, in granting relief to the complainant, as stated above.  Hence, the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

13.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.

14.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

14.01.2016                                               Sd/-                

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

rb