CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/197/15

                    Date of Institution: -   24.04.2015

                    Order Reserved on: - 09.04.2024

                            Date of Decision: -     28.06.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Maneesh Sharma,

R/o A-I, Allahabad Bank,

Apartment MayurKunjVashundra Enclave

South East Delhi

Also at

AL-5, 16/4, Shanti Doot Apartment

Sec-5, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra,

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

Spice Jet Pvt. Ltd.

SpiceJet Registered Office Address:

Cargo Complex Terminal 1-B Indira Gandhi International Airport Domestic Terminal, New Delhi

Also at:

SpiceJet Ltd. 319, Udyog Vihar,

Phase-IV,

Gurgaon, Haryana - 122016

……Opposite Party

Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member

1. The complainant and his wife travelled from Delhi to Mumbai via OP Flight SG131 on 18.08.2014. The complainant was carrying two baggage (one black duffel bag and one pack carton). The complainant states that on arriving at the Mumbai Airport, he did not find the black duffel bag containing all the souvenirs/gifts, formal clothes, and other articles. He has listed the articles along with their price in his complaint on page no.3, as reproduced below:

By the complainant's calculation, the articles he lost in his missing luggage are valued at Rs.40,000/-.

2. The complainant inquired from the OP personnel regarding his lost baggage and lodged a complaint. Despite waiting several days and repeatedly following up with OP customer care, the complainant was unable to get the status of his lost luggage. Finally, the complainant received a cheque bearing no.027901 dated 10.03.2015 for the sum of Rs.2400/- drawn on Yes Bank towards the compensation for the lost baggage of the complainant.

3. The complainant unhappy with the failed promise of the OP to locate his bag, filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He has prayed for directions to the OP to pay Rs.40,000/- towards the amount claimed by him, Rs.1 lakh towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment faced by him, along with 18% interest on the aforementioned amounts and the cost of litigation.

4. On notice, the OP filed the reply stating that the terms and conditions contained in the ticket (Annexure-R1) clarify the safety and security protocol wherein it is recommended that the passengers remove all valuables and medication from their checked-in baggage and place them in their carry-on. The complainant, however, decided to carry the valuable against the advice; hence, the OP is not responsible for any pilferage/damage to such valuables. The complainant lodged the Baggage Irregularity Report (BIR) at the Airport, and the relevant information filled out and duly signed by the complainant clarified that he lost his baggage, which only contained clothes and nothing else. Hence, the value of the articles in the lost bag, as calculated by the complainant, amounting to Rs.41,648/- is exorbitant, and no proof of these items mentioned by him in the complaint has been filed on record.

5. Further, as per the Carriage by Air Act, the liability of the OP airline in case of loss of baggage is limited to Rs.200/- per KG with a maximum of Rs.3000/- only as is given in the terms and conditions on the ticket under the heading 'Baggage'. Admittedly, in view of the stipulations, once it was determined that the OP was unable to locate the complainant's bag, a cheque of Rs.2400/- was remitted on 10.03.2015 to the complainant, which was accepted and encashed by him. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

6. The complainant filed rejoinder and affidavit in evidence reiterating the averments made in the complaint. The OP filed the affidavit of Sh. Vijay Roy, Manager Legal who, also repeated the statements as made in the reply. Both parties filed their written arguments, and we have heard the complainant on the date fixed for final arguments, as none appeared for the OP. Since the written arguments of the OP are on record, we felt it prudent that the case be decided due to its long pendency on the basis of material already on record. Hence, the order was reserved.

7. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the present complaint carefully and have perused the documents filed by the contesting parties.

8. We find that the complainant and his wife boarded the OP flight SG131 travelling from Delhi to Mumbai on 18.08.2014. The complainant checked in two pieces of luggage at the OP counter and was given baggage tags for both bags along with their boarding passes. When the flight landed at Mumbai Airport, the complainant was unable to locate his black duffel bag, which he had checked in at the OP counter in Delhi. He lodged a Baggage Irregularity Report (BIR) at the Airport when he could not locate his bag.

9. A bare perusal of the Baggage Irregularity Report annexed on Page no.14 of the complaint clarifies that the bag, which was 10 to 12 kgs, contained mainly clothes. The complainant has also filed a list of clothes whose value he has computed as more than Rs.40,000/-.

10. Despite all his efforts, the OP did not return the complainant's bag and instead sent a cheque drawn of Yes Bank dated 10.03.2015 for Rs.2400/-, which the complainant accepted and encashed. He, however, filed the present complaint for the harassment he faced due to the loss of his luggage.

11. The OP accepted that the complainant's luggage, which contained mainly clothes, was lost in transit and despite their best effort, the OP could not locate the complainant's luggage. Following the Carriage by Air Act provisions, the OP compensated the complainant by sending him a cheque of Rs.2400/-, which he duly accepted and encashed. However, the present complaint was filed before this Forum to make illegal gains after accepting the compensation amount. The OP, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
12. In our view, there is no doubt that the OP were deficient in service as promised to the complainant when he boarded the flight regarding the safekeeping of his checked-in baggage. The OP has not filed any documentary evidence to show the efforts that they claim to have made to locate the complainant's bag.The admission of the OP towards the same and the cheque sent to the complainant in lieu of his lost baggage amounting to Rs.2400/- towards compensation is an admission which needs no further discussion regarding the deficient service of the OP.

13. The crucial point, therefore, in the present case is whether the Forum can award compensation over and above the amount that the OP has already sent to the complainant,as mentioned above, towards the deficiency in service by the OP. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clarifies that the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being inforce.

14. Reliance is also placed on the following landmark judgments:

1. Trans Mediterranean Airways vs M/s. Universal Exports and Anr. VIII (2011) SLT 339, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as below:

2. This same issue is also reiterated in the decision of the Hon'ble National ConsumerDispute RedressalCommission in EmritesVs Dr. Rakesh Chopra, III (2013) CPJ 500 (NC).

1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted to give relief to consumers for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice etc. by service providers, traders, manufacturers etc. and the Honble Supreme Court in The Consumer & Citizens Forum v. Karnataka Power Corporation [1994 (1) CPR 130] has laid down that the provisions of this Act give the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws. In the instant case, no doubt the Appellant Airlines had sought to settle the consumers grievance purely in terms of the notional monetary loss suffered by him as per the relevant provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972. However, as discussed earlier, because there was deficiency in service on the part of Appellant Airlines in losing and mishandling the Respondents luggage, which caused him harassment, agony, mental tension and loss of professional face apart from monetary loss, he is entitled to compensation for this deficiency in service on Appellants part as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. …..."

15. In light of the above discussion and the precedentset by the Hon'ble Appellate Authorities, we are of the opinion that the complainant had entrusted his luggage to the OP for safe custody and delivery,which was admittedly lost by the OP. Though the OP has made the payment per the provisions of the CarriageBy Air Act, 1972, we feel that the complainant is entitled to compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.Keeping in viewthe law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissionand the statutory provision.

16. So far as the valuation made by the complainant towards his lost articles, it is difficult to authenticate the amount of Rs.41,648/-, which was calculated by the complainant for his clothing articles lost in the absence of any bills/documentary proof.

17. Hence, we find that the OP was deficient in service in tracing out the lost bag of the complainant and allowing the complaint; we direct the OP to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, inclusive of litigation cost.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 28.06.2024.