Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is filed by Sri Dibakar Bhattacharjee and Sri Sanjoy Pandit over loss of their luggage from the custody of the OPs.

In a nutshell, case of the Complainants is that, on the way to New Delhi by Air India Flight No. AI-21 on 13-08-2015, they handed over their entire luggage (i.e. two trolleys) at the ‘Check-in Luggage’ counter of the OP Airline at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Dum Dum.  On reaching Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, they did not get back their luggage.  Therefore, a complaint was lodged before the authority concerned at the airport itself. As a result of such loss of luggage, they could not discharge their professional duty before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for which they had to suffer huge financial loss.  Hence, this complaint.

By submitting a WV, it is submitted by the OP No. 1 that the Complainants have not made any complaint against this OP.  It is further submitted that the Complainant did not rely upon any document which shows any kind of transactions/act by and between the Complainants and this OP.  It is contended that this OP does not provide air transport service, but discharges duties to plan, develop, construct and maintain runways, aprons and terminals and provides air traffic services and other statutory obligations as provided under Sec. 12 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1995.  According to this OP, OP No. 2 provides services for carrying passengers along with their luggage to different destinations by air on specific terms and conditions agreed upon by and between the concerned airlines and passengers which has no connection with the functions and responsibility of this OP.  Accordingly, this OP prayed for exonerating itself from this complaint.

On notice, OP Nos. 2 to 4 appeared and contested the case by filing WV.  It is stated by these OPs that on receipt of complaint, messages were sent to different stations for locating the luggage, but the same could not be retrieved.  Complainant No. 2 was contacted over phone by Air India, Baggage cell to know the description of baggage including contents of baggage, but he could not provide necessary information at that moment and then, he was requested to send the required information through e-mail.  It is alleged by these OPs that after a long gap on 23-02-2016, the Complainants sent message enquiring about the loss of luggage to Air India, Delhi Baggage Cell.  These OPs state that they are willing and ready to pay compensation as per guidelines of the aviation sector. 

All the parties filed their respective evidence under affidavit and subsequently, reply to the questionnaire put forth by the other side were submitted by them. At the time of hearing, Ld. Advocates for the parties were heard at length.  We have also gone through the documents on record.

The core issue to be decided in this complaint is whether the Complainants deserves any relief, as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

Be it mentioned here that the Complainant No. 1, in reply to the specific query of the OP Nos. 2 to 4 as to whether or not officials of the Air India, Delhi Baggage Cell got in touch with the Complainant No. 2 over phone on 28-08-2015 to enquire about the description of the luggage, replied in the negative.  On the contrary, he claimed to have made several telephone calls to the said office of the OP Airline over phone on 13-08-2015.  The OP Airline has not furnished any material proof to substantiate its claim in the matter.

Be that as it may, fact remains that undisputedly the luggage of the Complainants got misplaced and insofar as the same was handled by the men of OP airline, it cannot shrug off due responsibility in the matter.  To be fair to the OP Airline, it has not shied away from compensating the Complainants for such loss.  However, it sought to settle the claim in terms of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and as amended vide Act 28 of 2009 dated 20-03-2009.  According to this, the liability of carrier in case of loss of domestic journeys is limited to Rs. 450/- per kg. in case of checked baggage.  Since total weight of the two trolleys of the Complainants was 26 kgs., the OP Airline expressed its willingness to pay Rs. 11,700/- to the Complainants. On the other hand, the Complainants demanded compensation worth Rs. 20,00,000/- from the OPs along with litigation cost for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 

In view of such claim and counter-claim, we are to decide whether the Complainants deserves more than what the OPs have offered to pay.

We find that the Complainants undertook the journey to attend court proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on behalf of their clients.  On going through the details as provided in the petition of complaint, we see no reason whatsoever to cast any doubt about the contention of the Complainants pertaining to the purpose of their said visit. However, as ill luck would have it, the unfortunate incident prevented them from appearing before the Hon’ble Court.  No doubt, it caused considerable financial loss to them – be it on account of loss of appearance fee, or loss of personal belongings, or paying hotel bills, or traveling expenses.  Further, it is naïve to believe that due to such occurrence, the Complainants were subjected to severe stress and mental agony in arranging necessary dresses.  It is also submitted by the Complainants that due to non-availability of notes, case references, synopsis etc., relating to concerned three cases, they could not confer with seniors.  Also, due to non-availability of coats and gowns, the Complainants though entered the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14-08-2015 (i.e. the date fixed for the hearing of subject cases) but, could not appear before the Hon’ble Judges as their entry pass was marked ‘For Consultation’.  

On receipt of the luggage of the Complainants, it was the sacrosanct duty/responsibility of the OP Airline to safely and securely carry the same till the same was delivered to the Complainants, which they miserably failed to discharge.  Thanks to the negligence of the OP Airline, the Complainants unnecessarily suffered harassment, agony, mental tension and loss of professional face, not to speak about the financial loss.  For such gross deficiency in service, the Complainants, in our considered opinion, are entitled to compensation for deficiency in service as enumerated under the Consumer Protection Act. 

Honble Supreme Court in The Consumer & Citizens Forum v. Karnataka Power Corporation [1994 (1) CPR 130] laid down that the provisions of this Act give the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other laws for the time being in force.

In the instant case, the OP Airlines sought to compensate the Complainants in terms of the relevant provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and as amended vide Act 28 of 2009 dated 20-03-2009. However, as discussed hereinabove, given that there was deficiency in service on the part of Appellant Airlines in losing the luggage of the Complainants, which caused them immense harassment, agony, mental tension and loss of professional face apart from monetary loss, in our considered opinion, Complainants are entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Spicejet Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dr. Atanu Ghosh [R.P. No. 1411/2015] and also in M/s Emirates v. Dr. Rakesh Chopra [F.A. No. 204/2008].

The complaint, accordingly, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The complaint is allowed on contest in part against the OP Nos. 2 to 4 and dismissed against the OP No. 1.  OP Nos. 2 to 4 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to each of the Complainants within 40 days hence. Besides, both the Complainants are also entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost from the OP Nos. 2 to 4. In default, the aforesaid compensation amount (not the litigation sum) shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. for the entire period of default.