Delhi

North

CC/204/2021

JITENDER KUMAR GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE JET LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

       District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.: 204/2021

Sh. Jiternder Kumar Garg, Advocate

Chamber Numer-K-72,

Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-110054                                               …Complainant

VS

Spice Jet Ltd.

321, Udyog Vihar. Phase-IV

Gurugram, Haryana-122016                                 …Opposite Party No. 1

ORDER

17/03/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Jitender Kumar Garg, the complainant against Spice Jet Ltd., OP with the prayer for refund of 180 Dirham equivalent to Rs.3,780/-, Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and  pendentlite interest @ 12 % per annum.

1. Facts necessary for the disposal of present complaint are that, on 26/07/2019, the complainant along with his friend, Sh.Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, boarded return flight from Dubai to Delhi vide PNR No. UYPT9J. The complainant has stated that boarding passes were issued in sequence to the complainant and his above named friend as they were together in queue and travelling under the same PNR. The total weight of the hand baggage was 14.5 kg and individually 10 kg and 4.5 kg respectively. The complainant was asked to pay 60 Dirham/kg (Rs. 3780/-) as the hand bag was 3 kg in excess than permissible weight.
2. It has been stated by the complainant that his request was declined by staff of OP to calculate combined baggage weight of both the passengers i.e. the complainant and his friend, as they were travelling together on same PNR and their check-in-baggage were also calculated jointly at the time of issue of boarding pass. In the complaint it has been averred that the complainant was not allowed to board the flight till the payment for excess baggage was made and the staff of OP not only threatened and misbehaved with the complainant but also tried to throw the contents of the baggage.
3. On 14/09/2019, a letter was sent to the customer care department of OP apart from emails dated 29/08/2019, requesting them to refund 180 Dirham wrongly charged towards excess baggage. On 05/09/2019, complainant received a reply stating that as both the passengers had checked in separately, therefore, OP had rightly charged for excess baggage. The complainant demanded the CCTV footage refuting the contentions of OP. Feeling aggrieved with act/ omission on the part of OP, hence the present complaint. The Complainant has stated that the present complaint is within limitation period as the cause of action arose on 26.07.2019, when he was forced to pay excess baggage charges and thereafter due to pandemic COVID the complaint could not be filed.
4. The Complainant has annexed the copy of the ticket, Receipt for payment of excess baggage charges, e-mails exchanged between the Complainant and the OP.
5.  Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP.  Thereafter, written statement was filed by OP. They have taken several objections in their defence. They have submitted that the present complaint was false, frivolous and misconceived. The passenger/guests are governed by terms of carriage contained in the e-ticket framed in accordance with carriage by Air Act, 1972 and notification regarding application of the International Carriage as per which:-

8.1

Baggage Allowance

8.1.1

Hand/ Cabin Baggage: Hand/ Cabin baggage of maximum 7 kg. (Which would include Laptop and duty free shopping bags) having maximum overall dimensions of: 108 cm. (L+W+H) on Bombardier aircraft, and 115 cm. (L+W+H) on Boeing aircraft, is allowed to be carried per passenger, free of cost. Passengers with infants are allowed to carry an additional piece of hand baggage of maximum 7 kg., not exceeding the size dimensions, as mentioned herein before.

Checked-in Baggage:

The free checked baggage allowance on SpiceJet international flights is as follows.

* Additional charges charged by the Service Provider & Handling Charges.

8.2

HAND BAGGAGE

8.2.1

Unless otherwise advised by Spice Jet, only one piece of Hand Baggage per Passenger will be allowed. The dimensions of the Hand Baggage should not exceed (L+B+H) – 55cm +35cm+25cm totalling 115cms (45 inches) on Boeing flights and 50cm+35cm+23cm totalling 108cms (42.5 inches) on Bombardier flights. The hand baggage allowance is 7 kg (which would include Laptop and duty free shopping bags) per adult and child (any passenger above 2 yrs of age). Strolley bags with the above specified dimensions will be allowed.

Less than stipulated weight of check-in baggage does not qualify for the difference of weight in hand baggage and vice versa.

8.2.3

SpiceJet may specify other maximum dimensions and/or weight for Hand Baggage. If SpiceJet has not done so, except as specified in 8.2.1, Hand Baggage which the Passenger carries onto the aircraft must fit under the seat in front or in an enclosed storage compartment in the cabin of the aircraft. If the Passenger’s Hand Baggage cannot be stored in this manner, or is of excessive weight, or is considered unsafe for any reason, it must be carried as Checked Baggage, subject to Articles 8.6 and 8.7.

6. They have submitted that conditions of Carriage of the Airlines constitute a valid and binding contract between the passenger and the Airlines; They have further submitted that vide e-mail dated 10.09.2019, the Complainant was duly informed that the excess baggage had been charged as per the terms of Carriage, Thus there was no deficiency in services on their part, hence, Complainant was not entitled to compensation. They have stated that co-passenger Mr. Manoj had boarded flight at 22:09 hrs and the Complainant boarded the flight at 22:18 hrs. They have denied that both the hand baggages were kept at the weighing machine or their combined weight was not more than 14.5 kg or individually they weighed 10 kg and 4 kg. They have stated that as the weight of the baggage of Complainant was 10 kg (3kg in excess) thus he was asked to pay excess baggage charges of 180 AED. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied.  They have annexed Terms of Carriage as Annexure R1.
7. Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP was filed by the Complainant. It has been stated that the terms of Carriage as relied upon by OP are not applicable to the case of the complaint as the combined weight being carried by the Complainant and his friend was 14.5 Kg as the ticket was a joint ticket with same PNR number. The Complainant has alleged that the Complainant was stopped and his friend was allowed to go and was even threatened to be handed over to the Police authorities with false allegations.
8. The Complainant has stated that OP be directed to produce CCTV footage to establish that the Complainant was forced to pay excess amount towards the baggage. It has also been submitted that on 09.05.2022, OP had orally offered a voucher of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as cash, which was unacceptable to the Complainant being too meagre.
9. Evidence by way of Affidavit was filed by the parties. Complainant has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and has reiterated the allegations. It has been reiterated that despite letter to customer care of OP of date 14.09.2019, the amount charged for excess baggage was not refunded.
10. OP has got examined Sh. Jasbir Chaudhary, Manager (Legal), on their behalf. The contents of their Written Statement have been repeated. They have stated that e-tickets, is a concluded contract between the Complainant and OP as the stipulations had been accepted by the Complainant at the time of booking, thus, the Complainant was estopped from disputing the same. They have got exhibited the Terms of Carriage as Ex.RW1/1.
11. We have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the Written Submissions. We have also perused the material placed on record. The Complainant has alleged that not only he was forced to pay 180 AED on account of excess baggage of 3 kg but also the staff of OP misbehaved with him. As per the Complainant, OP should have taken the combined weight of hand baggage and not individual as 2 passengers were travelling under one PNR-UYPT9J. Even in email written to
12. If we look at another email dated 17/9/2019, where the complainant has stated:

 “Dear sir,

When 02 passengers are traveling on same pnr, thn why the weight is not calculated jointly.  Aftr getting our baggegs weight done on the weight machine at the time of boarding the flight only v can come to know about the total weight of the each bag of both the passengers, after purchasing at duty free shop, which is not possible before at any point of time..

But i was not allowed to divide the weight equally in our both hand baggages.. though it was not required.

Our total weight of both the hand baggages collectively was 14.5 kg only..

I m fail to understand tht wht was d need to divide the weight in each bag equally, but ur staff was adamant n not allowed me to keep my goods in other/second hand baggage of my friend traveling with me at the same time n same pnr, though it was not required to do so.

U people r not trying to understand this simple thing and just trying to give false n unwarranted excuses again n again just to grab my money which was charged frm me in the garb of excess baggage..though there was no excess baggage of both of us as weighted in total....”

13. The Complainant has not produced any document on record to show that weight of combined baggage is to be considered. However, OP has refuted the allegation by placing on record the Terms of Carriage. As per clause 8.1.1:-

Baggage Allowance

8.1.1

Hand/ Cabin Baggage: Hand/ Cabin baggage of maximum     7 kg. (Which would include Laptop and duty free shopping bags) having maximum overall dimensions of: 108 cm. (L+W+H) on Bombardier aircraft, and 115 cm. (L+W+H) on Boeing aircraft, is allowed to be carried per passenger, free of cost. Passengers with infants are allowed to carry an additional piece of hand baggage of maximum 7 kg., not exceeding the size dimensions, as mentioned hereinbefore.

-

 If a passenger is carrying a checked-in baggage which is less than the stipulated weight-

Also, passengers travelling under the same PNR are allowed to club their check-in baggage only. However,  the weight of each baggage must not exceed 32 kg as per the airport baggage restriction. 

14. Hence, Clause 8.1.1 of the Terms of Carriage, as per which, maximum of 7Kg hand/cabin baggage is allowed to be carried per passenger, free of cost with specific dimensions and not per PNR. Therefore, the contention of the Complainant that combined weight under one PNR is to be considered does not hold ground. Also per the same clause passengers travelling under the same PNR allowed to club their check-in baggage only.  However the weight of each bag must not exceed 32 kg as per the airport baggage restriction, therefore the Complainant was allowed to club the check-in baggage with his friend.
15. Secondly, the Complainant has also denied that the boarding time of          Mr. Manoj Aggarwal, friend of the Complainant was 22:09 hrs and that of the Complainant was 22:18 stating that his friend was allowed to go and he was stopped. In support of his allegations, the crucial piece of evidence would have been the boarding pass. The boarding pass issued by OP would have depicted the exact details. However, the same has not been filed by the Complainant. Further, the complainant has also not got examined Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, co-passenger to support his allegation of misbehaviour and threat extended by the staff of OP.  As far as allegation of non supply of CCTV footage is concerned, it is the Airport Authority, which is in the control of the CCTV footage and not OP.  It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to prove his own case, which is not so in the present complaint. 
16. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint there is no deficiency in services on the part of OP in charging for excess hand baggage. As far as the allegations of misbehaviour by the staff of the OP is concerned, the Complainant has failed to prove his allegations. Hence, the present Complaint is dismissed, without orders to cost.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website. 

Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.