Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/73/2015

Rajeshwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice Jet Airlines Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Sharma

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/73/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	05/02/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	22/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Rajeshwar Singh son of Late S. Swinder Singh Kamal, resident of House No. 693, Phase-6, Mohali. 

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Spice Jet Airlines Limited, through its Managing Director, Regd. Office at Plot No. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-4, Gurgaon – 122016.

 

2.   Spice Jet Help Desk, Indira Gandhi International Air Port, New Delhi, through its Airport Incharge/ Manager.

 

3.   M/s Pack Travels & Tours (P) Limited, SCO 15, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Prop. Sh. Anup Singh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Naveen Sharma, Advocate.
For OPs No.1 & 2	:	Sh. Chand Deep Jindal, Advocate (OP No.2 already ex-parte)
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record are that, the Complainant booked air tickets, in the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, through Opposite Party No.3, for Delhi-Goa-Delhi from 16.6.2014 to 21.06.2014. It has been averred that four tickets of the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, from Delhi-Goa-Delhi, were booked and confirmed, for which the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.45,000/-. It has been further averred that boarding passes were issued to the Complainant on 16.06.2014 from Delhi to Goa and back for 21.06.2014. It has been also averred that the Complainant had carried with him a baby pram, for the comfort of her minor child aged 11 months, for which he had paid extra amount of Rs.3,000/-. It has been alleged that on 21.06.2014, when the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 reached Delhi, the Complainant and his family found their luggage missing and were stranded for hours at the Airport. Not only this, the baby pram was received by the Complainant, in damaged condition, as a result whereof, the Complainant had to face a lot of physical harassment. In these circumstances, 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 has been further alleged that a number of e-mails were sent, as also a number of telephone calls were made to the Opposite Parties, by the Complainant, to compensate him, for their aforesaid acts, but they refused to do so. Hence, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.  

   

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

3.     Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that the baby pram was handed over to the Complainant in the same condition as it was given. Moreover, as per the terms & 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). The luggage was handed over to the Complainant according to the schedule on the same day. It has been further pleaded that the Spice Jet’s officials tried their best to assist the Complainant and replied to his every query. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, answering Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded 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 (OP No.3) had no role to play in the entire episode. Moreover, in the entire Complaint, there are no specific allegations against it (OP No.3). Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

5.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have been controverted.

 

6.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.

 

8.     It is observed that the baby pram carried for the comfort of minor child of the Complainant was found to be damaged. The Complainant had paid an extra amount of Rs.3,000/- (Annexure C-3) and the baggage was given/ tagged a priority pass (Annexure C-7 and C-8). The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have pleaded that the baby pram was handed over in the same condition as it was given.

 

9.     We have perused the photograph of the baby pram which appears to be in damaged condition and does not appear to be a case of wear and tear of luggage. It is a clear case of mishandling of luggage by the staff of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 at the airport.

 

10.     The relevant provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, Chapter III (Liability of the Carrier) is reproduced hereinbelow: -

 

“R.18. (1) The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, or of damage to, any registered baggage or any cargo, if the occurrence which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air.”

 

11.     It can be seen from Annexure C-10 that the Complainant had lodged the Complaint with the authorities, immediately, after the arrival of his luggage and baby pram. The baggage of the Complainant containing ‘priority badge’ came very late i.e. at the last. This fact appears to have been reported to the representative of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 at the airport itself.

 

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. 

 

14.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

22^nd September, 2015                                

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER