Punjab

Sangrur

CC/311/2018

Pankaj Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rockman Holidays - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sandip Kumar Goyal

04 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    311

                                                Instituted on:      20.07.2018

                                                Decided on:       04.01.2021

 

 

Pankaj Bansal S/o Gopi Chand, SCF-46, New Grain Market, Dirba, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Rockman Holidays, Inside Mata Rani Street, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Manager 148001.

2.             Air Canada 111, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its General Manager.

3.             Lufthansa Airways, Terminal II, Indira Gandhi International, Mahipalpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110 037 through its MD, Phone 011-25652064.

4.             United Airline, 2nd Floor, Tower-C, Cyber Greens, DLF Gurgaon, Gurgaon-122002 (DLF Phase3).

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant    :       Shri Sandip Goyal, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.1    :       Shri Ramit Pathak,Adv.

For Opp.Party No.2    :       Exparte.

For Opp.party No.3    :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For Opp.party No.4    :       None.

 

 

Quorum:    Shri  Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President.

1.             Shri Pankaj Bansal, complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a  consumer of the Ops by purchasing air tickets for himself, his wife and two other members on 26.3.2018 from OP number 1 by paying Rs.3,64,000/- for a trip from Delhi to Munich via Frankfurt, Toronto, Las Vegas, Denver and back from Munich to Delhi and the journey was scheduled from 27 May, 2018.  The complainant and his family started their journey from Delhi to Frankfurt on 27.5.2018 by the flight of OP number 2 to 3 bearing Flight No.AC-9353, then they boarded from Frankfurt to Toronto on 27.5.2018 and thereafter the complainant availed journey from Toronto to Las Vegas by flight number AC-1851.  Thereafter the complainant started the journey from Las Vegas to Denver on 10.6.2018 on the flight of Op number 4 and further journey to Munich. 

2.             The grievance of the complainant is that when he reached back Delhi on the midnight of 11/12.6.2018 and told the authorities about their luggage then the OP number 3 told the complainant that his luggage will be coming on the next flight and he had to wait and the OP number 3 also issued a receipt regarding the missing of the luggage to the complainant. It is stated further that the luggage of the complainant includes handbags, sunglasses, watches, key chains, shoes, dresses, pens and the routine wears of the complainant and his family including about 2000 US Dollar.  Thereafter the OP number 3 told the complainant about the loss of the luggage, which was to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-. The complainant requested the Ops so many times to pay Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest being the loss of luggage, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to return the missing goods or to pay Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has concealed material facts and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got booked the tickets for him and his family by paying Rs.3,64,000/-. The allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied by the OP number 1 stating that it is not the duty of the OP to take care of the goods.  Rather it is the duty of the airways to take care of the luggage.

4.             Record shows that OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.

5.             In reply filed by Op number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  It is further stated that on 13.6.2018 the OP delivered the luggage to the complainant’s address and the complainant received all the luggage in fit and proper condition without any protest or demur.  It is beyond contemplation that the complainant could have accepted the baggage in a damaged condition without protesting about the same to the person bringing the courier. This clearly shows that the present complaint is only an afterthought motivated by the complainant’s malafide intention to somehow gain unjust enrichment. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from OP number 3.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  

6.             In reply filed by OP number 4, it is stated that the OP number 4 performed its duty diligently and there was no deficiency in services provided in this case.  The OP number 4 has no role to play in granting compensation to the complainant and its name should be deleted from the array of parties. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable as there was no privity of contract between the OP and complainant, that the OP number 4 is not responsible for any loss missing/loss of baggage of the complainant and that the complainant had accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/- from OP number 3 and thus a restitution had taken from with which the liability, if any, on the part of the Ops comes to an end. On merits, it is denied that the return journey of the complainant was scheduled on 11.6.2018 and further it is admitted that the complainant has been compensated by OP number 3.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  The OP number 4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for  OP number 1  has produced Ex.OP1/1  to Ex.OP1/2 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/4 affidavit and documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit and closed evidence.  

8.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

9.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased air tickets on 26.3.2018 from OP number 1 for Rs.3,64,000/-.  The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that they started their journey from Delhi to Frankfurt on 27.5.2018 by the flight of OP number 2 to 3 and then they board from Frankfurt to Toronto on 27.5.2018. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant started journey from Toronto to Las Vegas and when the complainant reached back on 12.6.2018 and when they told the authorities about their luggage  then the OP number 3 i.e. Lufthansa Airlines told the complainant that the luggage of the complainant is coming on the next coming flight and told that he has to wait for some time and told the complainant that they have lodged the complaint regarding missing of the luggage and OP number 3 issued receipt regarding missing of the luggage and told them to wait for two days for delivery of the luggage.  The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that all these goods of the complainant were packed into four suitcases.  The complainant received back the bags but he found that goods worth Rs.7,00,000/- were missing.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 argued that when the complainant asked OP number 3 to make the loss good, then the OP number 3 paid the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon a judgment of the West Bengal State Commission in Barij Baran Das versus Customer Affairs, Emirates Group and others 2009(4) CPJ 268 wherein it was directed to pay value of articles of Rs.1,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and further relied upon  a judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Spicejet Ltd. versus Dr. Atanu Ghosh, Revision Petition No.1411 of 2015, decided on 23.11.2015. Further the complainant has attached the receipts vide which they had purchased articles from USA and Canada.

10.            On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has argued that admittedly four luggage bags were not received on the same flight with the complainant he travelled. The learned counsel for the OP further argued that Rs.10,000/- were paid as compensation to the complainant.  The learned counsel for the OP further argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction and he has relied upon the judgment of  Hon’ble National Commission in Jagrut Nagrik and another versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2015(4) CPJ 170 (NC). To prove this case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1 and deposed as per his complaint.  Ex.C-2 is receipt of OP number 1 for Rs.3,64,000/-, Ex.C-3 is copy of ticket, Ex.C-4 is receipt of Lufthansa, Ex.C-5 is the list of missing articles, which is hand written list, Ex.C-6 is the complaint lodged with Lufthansa regarding loss of baggage, Ex.C-7 is also receipt of Lufthansa, Ex.C-8 is the receipt of purchase of goods from Las Vegas for US$ 140, Ex.C-9 is the receipt of purchase of goods from Ontario for US$ 518, Ex.C-10 is the receipt of purchase of goods from Las Vegas for US$ 110, Ex.C-11 is the receipt of purchase of goods from Las Vegas for US$ 100, Ex.C-12 is the receipt of purchase of goods from Mississauga for US$ 11, Ex.C-13 is the receipt of purchase of goods from Las Vegas for US$ 100 and Ex.C-14 is also receipt of goods purchased from Las Vegas for US$ 60, Ex.C-16 is the receipt of purchase of goods from Las Vegas for US$ 100, Ex.C18 is the receipt of purchase of goods from Las Vegas for US$ 433 and Ex.C-19 is the receipt of purchase of goods from Las Vegas for US$ 34.48. Smt. Rimpi Gupta Prop of OP number 1 has tendered her affidavit Ex.OP1/2 and deposed as per the written statement.  Lufthansa  Airways OP number 3 has tendered affidavit of Sarika Gandhi, Ex.OP3/1 and she has deposed as per his written statement.  It is admitted in the affidavit that the luggage was not received in the same flight but luggage was received in the next flight.  It is mentioned in the affidavit that the complainant and his family  did not receive the bags on reaching New Delhi at the midnight of 11-12.6.2018 and that the bags were received at Sangrur and Rs.10,000/- were also paid to the complainant by Lufthansa Airlines, so it is clear that Lufthansa has admitted something missing i.e. why they paid Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. 

11.            The main argument of OP number 3 is that this Commission has no jurisdiction and this argument is without any force as the complainant is the resident of Dirba District Sangrur.  In the complaint, they have mentioned that the goods worth Rs.7.00 Lacs were missing but details of goods is not mentioned in the complaint as to how they have calculated the loss of Rs.7.00 Lacs.  Email was sent by the complainant to Lufthansa Airlines is Ex.C3/3.  They have demanded compensation of US$ 10000. 

12.            As already stated above, the complainant has tagged various receipts vide which the complainant  purchased various articles from USA and Canada.  Admittedly, luggage was not received in the same flight and definitely there is deficiency in service on the part of OP number 3 i.e. Lufthansa Airways.  There was no occasion for the complainant to file the present complaint if they have received the total luggage  along with all the goods.   Admittedly, Rs.10,000/- was paid to the complainant as compensation. So, it is clear that something was missing and that is why the OP number 3 paid to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

13.            Taking the facts and circumstances of the complaint, the complaint is partly allowed and OP number 3 is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension agony and harassment and further OP number 3 shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.50,000/- from 12.6.2018 till its realisation in full.  The OP number 3 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/-  on account of litigation expenses.  This order be complied with within sixty days of its communication.

14.             A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

       

                                January 4, 2021.

 

             (Vinod Kumar Gulati)             (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)

                         Member                           President