STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | | 281 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | | 22.11.2017 |
Date of Decision | | 10.08.2018 |
(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 residents of H.No.1130, Sector 7, Panchkula Haryana.
…Appellants
Versus
(1) TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Registered Office Peninsula Business Park, Tower-A, 15th Floor, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013.
TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, SCO 232-234, Sector 34- A, Chandigarh. (2nd address)
(2) Travel Trendz, SCF 56, Level-I, Phase-7, above HDFC Bank, Mohali, through its Proprietor.
……Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 27.10.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No. 532/2016..
Argued by: Mr.Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Rajnish Malhotra,Advocate for respondent No.1
None for respondent No.2
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellants/complainants have filed this appeal against order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), dismissing their complaint.
2. Appellants No.2 & 3 are wife and daughter respectively of appellant No.1. The family booked a travel package through respondent No.2/OP NO.2 between 9.6.2016 to 29.6.2016 bound for Los Angles in USA. As advised, they also took “Travel Guard Platinum” insurance policy providing benefits of payment of USD500 in case of baggage delay and USD1000 each for missed connections/missed departures. It is an admitted case that the family boarded a flight to Los Angles through London. The flight offered by British Airways was delayed by two hours at Delhi. When they reached London, connecting flight had already left. They were made to wait for 17 hours at London Airport and they boarded the next flight from London to Los Angles on 10.6.2016 at 9.45 A.M. For above misconnection, the complainants claimed benefit of USD1000 each.
3. It is also an admitted fact that they undertook return journey from Los Angles to Delhi and reached Delhi on 29.6.2016. They checked-in their baggage, when boarding the flight at Los Angles, however, at Delhi, they were told that their baggage was not traceable. They had to come to Chandigarh through flight without baggage, which was delivered to them later on. It is their positive case that qua above said deficiency in providing service, on telephone, the matter was taken up with OP No.1/respondent No.1, however, they were intimated that their claim was not covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy. Thereupon, a legal notice was sent by the appellants to OP No.1 on 1.7.2016 which was received by the said OP at Mumbai on 8.7.2016. The said legal notice was replied vide letter dated 26.7.2016 rejecting their claim, on the ground, that they failed to fill up claim settlement form and further claim raised by them was not covered as per terms and conditions of the Policy issued to them. Under above circumstances, a consumer complaint was filed.
4. Upon notice, reply was filed. OP No.1/respondent No.1 did not dispute the factual matrix of the case. However, it was stated that as per Section 17 of the terms and conditions of the Policy missed departures on a scheduled airline was not covered for onward journey to Los Angles. Such an event was insured qua return journey from Los Angles to New Delhi. Further it was said that claim qua baggage could not be granted as it was not covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy. The baggage was delayed within the territorial jurisdiction of Republic of India. Pleading that there was no deficiency in providing service, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.2/Respondent No.2 specifically stated that there was no deficiency at its part. So far as service rendered by it was concerned, no deficiency has been alleged.
5. All the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of terms and conditions of the Policy, pleadings of the parties, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, when dismissing the complaint, observed as under ;
“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.”
6. We have perused the documents on record and heard Counsel for the parties. Taking note of terms and conditions of the Policy, we are satisfied that missing of connection/flight at the time of onwards journey from Delhi to Los Angles was not covered under the Policy, as such, to that extent, order passed is justified.
7. Qua declining claim of the appellants for delayed receipt of baggage, it is opined that to that extent, the Forum has gone wrong and the order has been passed contrary to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
As per case of the appellants, the family boarded a flight for return journey at Los Angles. Baggage was checked-in at that place. The journey terminated in between. However, baggage was not rechecked-in as it was bound from Los Angles to Delhi. The Airline was duty bound to deliver the baggage at Delhi on arrival of the flight. However, it was found missing and was not delivered to the family. The above fact is proved from receipt(C-8 at page 28 of the complaint file) given by British Airways to the appellants/complainants. It is specifically mentioned therein that the baggage was not available for delivery. It was further stated that the missing baggage will be located and delivered at the premises of the appellants/complainants. The baggage was received thereafter.
8. It is case of the appellants that they intimated the above facts on telephone to a representative of OP No.1. However, settlement of their claim was refused. It is on record that the appellants immediately sent legal notice on 1.7.2016 giving detailed facts qua missing of flight and the missing/delayed receipt of baggage. The said notice was replied vide letter dated 26.7.2016. Virtually the claim was rejected, on the ground, that the claim form was not filled up by the appellants and further claim raised was not covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy. The legal notice was nothing, but a claim raised. It should have been settled as such. If it was a ritual to fill up a form, appellants should have been intimated to do so, but it was not so done. By taking hypertechnical objection, claim was rejected.
Furthermore to reject the claim, reliance was placed upon the following exclusion Clause in the Policy ;
Exclusion:
“In addition to the General Exclusions listed in this Policy this coverage section shall not cover any Baggage Delay incurred in the Republic of India.”
9. It was stated, as a matter of fact, that the baggage was delayed within the territory of Republic of India, as such, the claim was not payable. It is positive case of the appellants, and not proved otherwise, that the luggage was checked-in by them, when boarding the flight at Los Angles upto Delhi. If flight disrupted in between the baggage was not to be rechecked by the appellants again. It was duty of the airline to transfer the said baggage from one flight to another and baggage was to be delivered on arrival of the flight at Delhi. However, the baggage was not delivered. There is nothing brought on record to show that the baggage was mixed up at Delhi and could not be delivered. The above fact clearly indicates that the baggage was delayed beyond the jurisdiction of Republic of India and the claim was payable to the appellants. As per terms and conditions of the Policy, in case of delay in getting the baggage, insurance Policy provides payment of an amount of 500 USD.
10. In view of above, we partly allow this appeal and to that extent order passed is modified and it is ordered that respondent No.1/OP NO.1 shall pay an amount of 500 USD (conversion rate of that date shall be applicable when payment is made). It is also on record that on account of delay in receipt of baggage, appellants/complainants have to suffer lot of physical harassment and mental tension. By rejecting their claim, they were put to further inconvenience. Accordingly towards suffering physical harassment and mental tension and legal expenses, we order that respondent No.1/OP NO.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (consolidated) against the above said components. Let the amount awarded be paid within two months from today, failing which, the amount awarded shall entail interest @ 7% p.a. till the date of making the payment.
11. Qua respondent No.2/OP No.2, this appeal is dismissed.
12. With above modification, this appeal stands partly allowed and is disposed of.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
