Sri Ranjan Ray, Ld. Member

FINAL ORDER/ JUDGEMENT

This complaint C.P. Act, 1986 was initially filed against the Opposite Party (O.P.) – 1) 1. The Airport Manager, Go Airlines (India) Ltd., Bagdogra Airport, P.O. & P.S.- Bagdogra, District- Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734014 and 2. The Director, Go Airlines (India) Ltd., 1^st Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (WCI), Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai,Pin Cod- 400025, Nearest Landmark: Deepak Talkies who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).

The case of the complainant as per her complaint is as follows-

The complainant argued in his plaint that he went to New Delhi and was scheduled to return to Siliguri on 05.01.2017 after purchasing the flight tickets from the O.P.s for an amount of Rs. 4, 006/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Six) only and the flight details was G8/ 157, PNR No. FFCDAO. The complainant also argued that he was travelling on the said flight of the O.P.s with a brand new suitcase of American Tourister which he purchased in the month of November, 2016 for an amount of Rs. 8, 600/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Six Hundred) only and after reaching at Bagdogra Airport he noticed that his said suitcase was badly damaged and the body was ripped off from the upper part of the surface. The complainant added that after seeing this he immediately contacted one of the officers of the O.P. Company duly deployed at Bagdogra Airport but the said officer denied their responsibility by stating that the Airlines of the O.P. company was not responsible for any damage to the luggage. The complainant also argued that subsequently on 06.01.2017 he lodged a complaint vide E-mail regarding the damages of his luggage for the negligent service of the O.P.s. and in response to the complainant’s e-mail being a service provider the O.P.s denied their minimum standard responsibilities but finally the O.P.s realized their negligent service towards the complainant and on 06.04.2017 and 09.05.2017 they offered a sum of Rs. 4, 000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) only to the complainant against the said damage which was unreasonable to the complainant. The complainant also argued in his plaint that he asked for simple replacement of the bag or the value of the same and finally on 08.05.2017 the complainant again sent an E-mail to the O.P.s regarding for increasing the amount but on 09.05.2017 the O.P.s again denied and finally finding no other alternative the complainant filed this instant case.

                             The prayers of complainant are as follows :

1. To pass an order directing the O.P.s and to pay the claim amount of Rs. 8, 400/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Four Hundred) only to the complainant as the cost of the American Tourister suitcase.
2. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only for immense mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant for a long period.
3. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service.
4. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only to the complainant as litigation cost.
5. To pass such other order/ orders as your Honour would deem fit for.

List of Documents filed by the complainant:

1. Photocopy of Flight Ticket and Boarding Pass
2. Photocopy of E-mail communications between the complainant and O.P.s.
3. Photocopy of legal notice vide Ref. No. MP-LN/007/FEB/2017 dated 16.02.2017 along with postal receipt and postal acknowledgment card.
4. Photocopy of legal notice vide Ref. No. MP-LN/011/APR/2017 dated 05.04.2017 along with postal receipt and internet postal tracking receipt.

          On behalf of the Opposite Party (O.P.)- 1) The Airport Manager, Go Airlines (India) Ltd., Bagdogra Airport, P.O. & P.S.- Bagdogra, District- Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734014 and 2) The Director, Go Airlines (India) Ltd., 1^st Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (WCI), Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai,Pin Cod- 400025, Nearest Landmark: Deepak Talkies who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.) and as per their W.V. the case is as follows.   

The O.P. No.1 in their W.V. denied all allegations made by the complainant and also argued that, they seek permission and rely on their Rules and Regulations as well as other related documents and also rely upon the entire correspondence between the parties and this O.P. reserves their rights to amend, alter or file a rejoinder to this version. The O.P. also argued that the Rules and Regulations governing Go-Air Airlines clearly state “ These Go-Air Regulations shall be subject to, interpreted in accordance with and governed by Indian law. All claims and disputes shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Mumbai, India only” and by booking a flight travel with the O.P. the complainant accepted the jurisdiction of the courts/ forums/ tribunals in Mumbai only,

The O.P.s also argued that they denied that the baggage was badly ripped off from the upper part of the surface and the staff of O.P. provided all assistance to the complainant to redress his grievance and the complainant was not entitled to get any compensation but still the O.P. gave a compensation of Rs. 4, 000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) only to the complainant as a genuine gesture but the complainant failed to revert on the offer and accepted. The O.P. also added in his W.V. that they are not liable to pay any sum of money as claimed by the complainant and they have only followed the terms and conditions prevailing which form a binding contract between the parties and the same is recognized and accepted by law.

List of documents filed by the O.P. No.1 are as follows :

1) Photocopy of the photograph of the baggage. (Annexure 1)

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version and documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.

Points for consideration

1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?

3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case? 

4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?

5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?

Decision with reasonS:-

                             All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard arguments of both the parties in full length.

The complainant resides in the jurisdiction of Siliguri and the O.P. No.1 (Go Airlines (India) Ltd.) is also carrying his business in Bagdogra Airport, P.O. & P.S.- Bagdogra, District- Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734014. Thus, the Commission has no doubt that the complainant is a very much consumer as per the Consume Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection Act- 2019 and also there is no doubt that this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case.

At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P not only through her Written Deposition but also by producing documents.

In this case the complainant claimed that he was travelling on the flight of the O.P.s with a brand new suitcase of American Tourister which he purchased in the month of November, 2016 for an amount of Rs. 8, 600/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Six Hundred) only and after reaching at Bagdogra Airport he noticed that his said suitcase was badly damaged and the body was ripped off from the upper part of the surface but in support of his brand new suitcase the complainant did not file any document to show that the said product was brand new. As per the meaning of the word “brand new” is “completely new or specially not yet used” but in this instant case, this Commission did not find any relevant document filed by the complainant that the said suitcase was either brand new or it had not yet been used. Hence, in absence of Cash Memo or any Invoice related to the said suitcase this Commission is not in a position to conclude that the price of the said suitcase was Rs. 8, 600/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Six Hundred) only and it was either “brand new” or “not yet used”.

On the other hand, the O.P.s always tried to negotiate with complainant to resolve this issue but without any Cash Memo of Invoice it was not possible for the O.P.s to assess the actual price of the said suitcase. In their W.V. the O.P.s clearly stated their company’s damage baggage policy

“Should in the rare incident, our customer’s baggage arrive damaged at the destination; GoAir shall make best possible efforts to get it repaired. In such cases, it is required that the customer contact the GoAir customer service staff in the arrivals concourse at their destination, before leaving the airport”.

In spite of this, the O.P.s tried to pay Rs. 4, 000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) only to the complainant for the damage of the said suitcase.

The complainant filed a judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, INDIAN AIRLINES- Appellant Vs. PRAKASH SHETTY- Respondent, (Before : K. S. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. p. d. Shenoy, Member), Revision Petition No. 768 of 2000, Decided on: 16- 08- 2007 but this Commission holds that this decision does not applicable with this instant case.

The O.P.s referred a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Full Bench, BHARATHI KNITTING CO.- Appellant Vs. DHL WORLDWIDEEXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIRFREIGHT LTD.- Respondent, (Before: K. Ramaswami, J; G. B. Pttanaik, J; Faizan Uddin, J), Civil Appeal No. 9057 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10001 of 1996), Decided on: 09- 05- 1996. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “It is true that the limit of damages would depend upon the terms of the contract and facts in each case.” and also the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case that “National Commission was right in limiting the liability undertaken in the contract entered into by the parties and awarding the amount for deficiency in service to the extent of the liability undertaken by the respondent.” Thus this Commission does not find any deficiency of service from the part of the O.P.s.       

          So, as per the above discussion this Commission does not find any deficiency of services from the part of the O.P.s.

Hence, it is,

ORDERED

That the Consumer Case No. 61/2017 be and same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s without cost.

          Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.