FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

  SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR GANGULY, MEMBER

This is an application U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The brief fact of the case is that complainants obtained from the OPs  Reliance Travel Care Policy Bearing No. 920221728 in the name of Mrs. Poonam Jagatramka on payment of Rs. 864/- as premium on 04/07/2017 and another policy bearing no.920221728190006421 in the name of Mahesh Kr. Jagatramka on payment of Rs-1362/- on the same day. Both the policies were obtained online and valid for the period from 07/07/2017 to 16/07/2017 midnight or the date of return whichever is earlier. The coverage provided by OPs in the said policy is

(1) for total loss of checked  baggage to the tune of 1000 USD.

(2) For trip cancellation and interruption to the tune of 600 USD.

(3) For missed connections to the tune of 200 USD.

With the above mentioned provision of benefits the complainants started journey for Russia and afterwards took their  returned flight from St. Petersburg to Delhi vis Moscow on 13/07/2017

by Aeroflot airlines bearing no SU029 / SU 234. The complainants booked their luggage at St. Petersburg Airport for its direct delivery to Delhi airport but due to some technical reasons the Complainants were detained at Moscow Airport for more than 27 hours and for that they missed their connecting flight from Moscow to Delhi. Thereafter they boarded another flight on 15.07.2017 from Moscow to Delhi by Aeroflot Airlines and arrived Delhi on 16.07.2017. On reaching over there at Delhi they came to know that their baggage were missing and the complainants had total loss of their respective baggage. The complainants filed their claim to the Airlines Authority for their baggage and since the baggage was not found available the Airlines Authority compensated the complainants to the tune of Rs.19490/- each  out of their total claim of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The complainants thereafter submitted their claims to the OPs for the total loss of two baggage and loss due to trip cancellation and their claims were registered vide claim reference No.M102034.58 & M106249.80. The complainants claimed Rs.50,000/- for trip cancellation and misconnection and Rs.1,00,000/-  for total loss of baggage each. But after filing of the claims the OPs started avoiding the complainants and putting question of purchase bills and vouchers, proof of ownership and copy of PIR which was earlier reported to them. They also wanted to know vide letter dated 04.12.2017 that on what basis the Airlines Authority paid Rs.300 US Dollars to the complainants. As per prevailing norms the Airlines Authority pays maximum amount of 20 Dollars per Kg for the loss of any baggage. In spite of knowing the facts the OPs kept on harassing the complainants by not disbursing the claim which tantamount to deficiency in service as well as negligence on the part of the OPs. The OPs inspite of receiving legal notice on 20/10/2018 had not made any reply. All the original documents are lying with the OPs and the OPs adopted unfair trade practice by not providing service to the consumers. Finding no other alternative the complainants are  forced to approach the commission for getting justice and relief/reliefs as mentioned in the complaint petition.

The OP 1 has contested the case by filing their WV contending inter alia that the said petition is barred by limitation , misconceived and suppression of material facts. The OP admits the travel care policies issued to the petitioners on 04/07/2017 subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions. Required documents were not submitted by the complainants for which the claim could not be settled. There was also suppression of facts on the part of the complainants. The OPs further state that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on their part in settlement of the claim for which the complaint petition should be dismissed.

Points  for Determination

In the light of the above pleadings, the following  points necessarily have come up for determination.

1) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant?
            2)  Whether the OPs have  indulged in unfair trade practice?

           3)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 Decision with reasons

Point Nos. 1 to 3 :-

The above mentioned points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

We have travelled over the documents and evidence placed on record. Both parties have submitted their evidence on affidavit and also their BNAs.  The complainant and the OP No- 1 have filed replies to the questionnaire  set forth by their adversaries.

Fact remains  that the complainants had taken insurance policies  from the OPs. In the name of Reliance Travel Care Policy for the period from 07.07.2017 to 16.07.2017 by paying requisite premiums for protection against various coverage including loss of luggage, trip cancellation and interruption and missed connection for their trip to Russia. The complainants took their returned flight from St. Petersburg  to Delhi via Moscow on 13^th July  2017 by Aeroflot Airlines and booked their baggage at St. Petersburg Airport for its direct delivery at Delhi Airport but unfortunately, due to some technical issue the complainant were detained at Moscow Airport for more than 27 hours and for that the complainants had to miss their connecting flight from Moscow to Delhi.

 The complainants thereafter, boarded another flight  on 15^th July,  2017 from Moscow to Delhi by Aeroflot Airlines and arrived at Delhi on  16^th July,  2017. On reaching Delhi, the complainants found their luggage missing which fact was ultimately made known to the Airlines Authority. The Airlines Authority thereafter compensated the complainants by monetary value to the tune of Rs.  19,490/- only to each of the complainants out of the total claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. Since, the complainants were covered by Reliance Travel Policy, they lodged their claim to the OPs which was however, not settled by the OPs for the reason that the complainants have not submitted requisite documents as asked for by their letter 04.12.2017, 27.10.2017, 17.03.2018 & 01.04.2018. From the evidence of the OP-1, it is understood that the documents required to be submitted were proof of ownership of items contained within the checked in baggage valued in excess of the Indian Rupee equivalent of loss of US $ 100. They also submit that the complainants failed to produce purchase bills/ vouchers to prove the amount claimed for the total loss of articles in the baggage/ for the loss of baggage. While perusing the letters of the OPs dated 04.12.2017, 17.03.2018 and 01.04.2018, we find that they are asking the ownership proof of the items contained within checked-in-baggage valued in excess of the Indian Rupee equivalent US $ 100 which is mandatory. But we do not find any document submitted by the OPs that the above terms and conditions were made known to the complainant while accepting the offer of insurance made by the complainants. Loss of luggage was admitted by the airlines authority for which the complainants were compensated to the tune of Rs. 19,490/- as evident from the documents placed on record. In view of the above, it is established that the complainants have lost their luggage which is termed as total loss of baggage as per the policy. It is also very much uncommon that the persons who are undergoing any tour are carrying a list of belongings and the value of each item/ belongings in terms of bills and vouchers along with them. Moreover, there is no agreement in between the complainant and the OPs where from it could be observed that the requirements presently asked for by the OPs  were duly made known to the complainants at the time of issuance of policy and the same were accepted also by the complainants.

Under the above  situation, the OPs’ submission for non settlement of claim is  not tenable in the eye of law  for which the benefits / coverage of the impugned policies are payable to the complainants. As per the policy issued to Mahesh Kumar Jagatramka being the complainant No.1 the coverage for total loss of checked baggage is 1000 USD less by deductable 100 USD and in case of  Mrs. Poonam  Jagatramka the coverage for total loss of checked baggage  as per policy is 1000 USD only. The issue of missed connection as well as trip cancellation due to some technical reasons is not supported by proper documents for which we are not in a position  to allow those prayers.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, the complainants have established the case in their favour.

All the points under determination are answered accordingly.

In the result, the Consumer Complaint succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the Complaint Case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP 1 &2 and dismissed against the Proforma Opposite Party Aeroflot Airlines with the following directions.

1. The OPs 1&2 are directed to pay 1000 USD $ with deductable 100 USD $ to the Complainant No.1,  Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jagatramka.

2. The OPs 1&2 are also directed to make payment of 1000 USD $  to the complainant No. 2,  Mrs. Poonam Jagartramka

3. The OPs 1&2 are further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainants.

4. The OPs 1&2 are also  further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-  as litigation costs to the complainants.

The above orders are to be complied by the OPs 1&2 within 30 days from the date of the order, in default, the complainants will be at liberty to put the order into execution as per rules.

The Judgment be uploaded to the website of the Commission forthwith for perusal of the parties.