Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/532/2016

Puneet Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar

27 Oct 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/532/16
Date  of  Institution	:	21/07/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	27/10/2017

 

 

 

 

(1)  Puneet Jain;

 

(2)  Monica Jain w/o Puneet Jain;

 

(3)  Sana Jain d/o Puneet Jain, through Puneet Jain being father and natural guardian;

 

All r/o #1130, Sector 7, Panchkula (Haryana).

 

……… Complainants

Versus

 

(1)  TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Registered Office Peninsula Business Park, Tower-A, 15^th Floor, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013.

 

        Second Address:

 

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, SCO 232-234, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

(2)  Travel Trendz, SCF 56, Level-I, Phase-7, above HDFC Bank, Mohali, through its Proprietor.

……. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Sh. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.2	:	Sh. Jaspreet Singh, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Puneet Jain and Others (hereinafter called the Complainants) have filed this consumer complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that the Complainant along with his wife and daughter booked a travel package for Los Angles from the Opposite Party No.2 from 09.06.2016 to 29.06.2016 and on its assurance also took a travel insurance plan “Travel Guard Platinum” of Opposite Party No.1 on 26.05.2016, whereby in case of baggage delay (after first 12 hours), they (Complainants) were entitled for $500 (US Dollars) each and in case of missed connection/ missed departure, they were entitled for $1000 (US Dollars) each. It has been averred that the flight booked by Opposite Party No.2 was of British Airways and it was connecting flight from New Delhi – London – Los Angles. As per the Schedule, the Complainants boarded the flight from New Delhi on 09.06.2016 which was delayed by two hours, due to which they reached late at Heathrow Airport, London and missed the connecting flight to Los Angles. The Complainants were issued emergency Visa by U.K. authorities along with flight and they (Complainants) boarded flight on 10.06.2016 at 9:45 a.m. from London to Los Angles after a gap of 17 hours. It has been further averred that the Complainants had their return flight from Los Angles – London- New Delhi on 29.06.2016. The baggage was checked in at Los Angles Airport, which was to be handed over at New Delhi Airport. It has been alleged that the Complainants after reaching New Delhi Airport waited sufficiently for their luggage to appear on the belt, but to their surprise the luggage of other passengers came except their luggage. A Complaint was accordingly lodged with the British Airways at the Airport, who issued an apology letter. The Complainant No.1 contacted the Opposite Party No.1 to pay the claim benefits as mentioned on the cover note i.e. $500 (US Dollars) for baggage delay and $1000 (US Dollars) each for missed connection. Although, the Opposite Party No.1 noted down the Complaint of the Complainants, but even after repeated requests, it (OP No.1) failed to pay the claim. Eventually, the Complainants got served a legal notice dated 01.07.2016 upon the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to fructify. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainants have preferred the present Complaint.

 

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

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that as per Section 17 of the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy, “missed departures on a scheduled airline would only be covered on the return journey and not the onward journey of the insured”. In the present case, the onward journey to Los Angles, would as a result, is not covered. Further as per the exclusion u/s 6 of the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy, the coverage for baggage delay would not be covered in the event the baggage delay incurred in the Republic of India which in the present case had with the baggage delay occurring at New Delhi Airport and hence, would not be covered as a result. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that in the entire Complaint, the Complainant has allegations and grievances against Opposite Party No.1. It has been asserted that on receipt of the legal notice, the same was duly replied to and the Opposite Party No.1 was requested to settle the matter amicably, but they refused to settle the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

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

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties have also perused the record.

 

7.      The main grievance of the Complainants is that before visiting abroad they took Travel Guard Platinum Policy which had benefits of baggage delay and missed connection/ missed departure, but the Opposite Party No.1 has not honoured the commitments as stipulated in the said Policy.

 

8.      On perusal of the terms & conditions of the said Policy, placed at Annexure R-1, we find that as per Section 17 of the terms & conditions of the policy, missed departures on a scheduled airline would only be covered on the return journey and not the onward journey of the Complainants. It is thus proved that in the present case, the onward journey to Los Angles would as a result, not be covered. Further, as per the Exclusion under Section 6 of the terms & conditions, the coverage for baggage delay would not be covered in the event the baggage delay occurred in the Republic of India, which in the present case had with the baggage delay occurring at the New Delhi Airport and hence, would not be covered as a result.   

 

9.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27^th Oct., 2017                                                 Sd/-         

 (SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                               Sd/- 

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”