Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/192/2021

Dr. Chandran Krishnan Peechulli - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman and Managing Director, Indigo Airlines and another - Opp.Party(s)

Sneha

20 Oct 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 06.10.2021

Date of Reservation      : 21.09.2022

Date of Order               : 20.10.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.192 /2021

THURSDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

Dr.Chandran Krishnan Peechulli,

(Senior Citizen, 75 years-Chief Engineer -Retired),

M107-12, “Prefab Flats”, 29^th Cross Street,

Besant Nagar,

Chennai – 600 090.                                                            ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

1.The Chairman & Managing Director,

   IndiGo Airlines, Corporate Office,

   Level 1, Towera C, Global Buisness Park,

   Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002.

   Haryana, India.

 

2.Duty Manager – IndiGo Airlines,

   Chennai Domestic Airport Terminal,

   Grand Southern Trunk Road,

   Meenambakkam,

   Chennai – 600 027.                                                  ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. Sneha

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. Ramasubramaniam & Associates

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to pay added compensatory benefits for breach of contract to the loss occurred, i.e., Rs.35,000/- and two new branded full-sleeved shirts of value Rs.4598/-and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damage and compensation for physical and mental strain along with cost of this complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant submitted that on 07.07.2021 while collecting his unaccompanied baggage (checked in at Chennai Airport) to take delivery at Jaipur Airport, he was shocked to see that his suitcase padlock was broke open and on scrutiny he found that Rs.35,000/- and two branded full hand shirt of value Rs.2299/- each total amount to Rs.4598/- was missing at Jaipur Airport. When the Complainant went to the IndiGo staff on duty and shown the damage caused, the Indigo Duty officer noted the complaint and informed to make a complaint to the Customer Relations. Since the purpose of the complainant travel was to attend a pre viva at MVGU University Premises, forenoon of the next day, he hired a taxi and left for the already booked Hotel Konark Palace. On 08.07.2021 as sooner the Pre Viva Voce was over the Complainant rushed to Jaipur Airport for renewing the complaint regarding the damage and loss sustained to unaccompanied air baggage while in transit at Bangalore and to seek boarding pass for the next day return travel to Chennai. On 09.07.2021 on departure he reported to the Indigo Manager, who assured to arrange a fair and true investigation for the loss sustained. Hence the complaint seeking suitable compensation for the loss sustained and for the mental agony.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

        The Opposite Parties submitted that the present complaint has been filed against Chairman and Managing Director -Indigo Airlines and duty Manager Indigo Airlines was wrongly impleaded, it has been filed against a nonexistent entity and the proper party is “Inter Globe Aviation Limited” and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. This Hon’ble Commission does not possess the territorial jurisdiction to hear the present complaint as the IndiGo conditions of Carriage/ Domestic ( “IndiGo CoC”) being the binding contractual document between the Complainant and Inter Globe Aviation Ltd, clearly stipulates that the Courts of New Delhi shall alone have jurisdiction. Therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

        The Complainant has not made out the cause of action against Inter Globe Avaiation Limited  for any deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice. The Complainant has failed to disclose the fact that he possessed valuables in his checked in luggage including money. The Complainant failed to produce evidence which suggest that he placed valuables in his luggage. The Complainant received the checked in bag on 07.07.2021, in the same condition as it was received by Inter Globe Aviation Ltd at the time of checked in on the departure Airport and was duly accepted by the Complainant without any protest at any point of time. The Complainant has not raised any complaint about damage to the bag or any content missing at the time of collection of baggage. Only on 08.07.2021 the present complaint relating to damage and loss was made and that the Complainant outght not to have carried any valuable items in his checked in baggage and if he had done so it is own risk.

        The Complainant booked for travel on 07.07.2021 on a connecting flight from Chennai to Bangalore, and from Bangalore to Jaipur, on board IndiGo Flight No. 6E-447 and IndiGo Flight No. 6E 469, respectively (collectively, "IndiGo Flights"). The said IndiGo Flights booking was made on 28.06.2021 and confirmed by InterGlobe Aviation Limited upon receipt of Rs.5950/- by the Complainant. IndiGo Flight No. 6E-447 was scheduled to depart from Chennai airport at 9:05 AM and land in Bangalore at 9:55 AM, whereas the connecting IndiGo Flight No. 6E-469 was scheduled to depart from Bangalore at 14:50 AM and land in Jaipur at 17:25 AM. The aforementioned bookings were confirmed under PNR No. CFR3QY through Cleartrip Travels Pvt. Ltd., being a third-party travel agent, and the Complainant by his own admission travelled on both IndiGo Flights successfully on 07.07.2021. The Complainant had checked in one piece of luggage weighing 7 kgs and was allotted bag tag no. 0312050134.  At the time of checking-in the said luggage, the Complainant had not disclosed any valuable items being allegedly carried in the said bags, nor had declared the value thereof. That upon arrival at Jaipur Airport on 07.07.2021 the Complainant received his check-in luggage, and did not raise any concern or complaint with InterGlobe Aviation Limited's staff concerning the state or condition of his luggage, It is pertinent to note that if the Complainant's lock had in fact been broken, the Complainant would have noticed it immediately and brought it to the attention of InterGlobe Aviation Limited's staff. However, the Complainant took no such action on 07.07.2021. Thereafter, on the evening of 8 July 2021, i.e., after 24 hours of the date of arrival, the Complainant went back to Jaipur Airport, and complained that the lock on his checked in luggage had been allegedly broken and INR 35,000/- was allegedly missing from his luggage. On the morning of 09.07.2021 at around 10:00 AM, the Complainant once again visited Jaipur Airport with the same complaint.  Based on the Complainant's allegations on 09.07.2021, InterGlobe Aviation Limited's Proactive Service Help Desk ("PSHD") team got in touch with the Complainant promptly on 09.07.2021 itself.  It is further pertinent to note that the images provided to InterGlobe Aviation Limited do does not indicate that the lock was damaged or broken. On 21.07.2021, a member of InterGlobe Aviation Limited's Customer Relations team informed the Complainant that the CCTV Footage had been reviewed, but no suspicious activity concerning the Complainant's luggage had been seen. Despite the prompt investigation by InterGlobe Aviation Limited, the Complainant continued to harass the staff of InterGlobe Aviation Limited by sending repeated emails concerning the allegedly broken lock and the alleged theft of INR 35,000/- and two shirts. Each time, InterGlobe Aviation Limited's staff politely responded to the Complainant stating that no suspicious activity had been found. On 23.08.2021, the Complainant was once again informed that InterGlobe Aviation Limited does not admit any liability when passengers carry valuables in check-in luggage despite being prohibited from doing so.  It is submitted that the IndiGo CoC forms a binding contract between InterGlobe Aviation Limited and the Complainant and the same was duly made available to the Complainant at the time of booking and further was agreed to by the Complainant before the booking was processed. The IndiGo CoC is also publicly available on InterGlobe Aviation Limited’s Website and is available at every airport counter as well. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10 were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and on the side of Opposite Parties Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-12 were marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled?

 

 

Point No.1:-

        The undisputed facts are that the Complainant had booked a connecting flight for the travel on 07.07.2021 from Chennai to Bangalore and from Bangalore to Jaipur in IndiGo flight No.6E 477 and IndiGo flight No.6E 469 respectively, as seen from Ex.A-1 and the Complainant had travelled in the said flight on 07.07.2021. The dispute arose with regard to break open of his checked in luggage with loss of money and 2 branded shirts at Jaipur Airport.

        The contention of the Complainant is that on 07.07.2021, while collecting his unaccompanied baggage at Jaipur airport he was shocked to see that the pad lock of his baggage was broke open and found loss of Rs.35,000/- and two branded full hand shirt of value Rs.4598/-. The Complainant had informed the IndiGo duty officer who gave the email id of the Customers relations. As the Complainant had to attend a Pre-Viva- Voce in MVGU University Premises, next day, he left the airport.

        On 08.07.2021, after attending Pre Viva Voce in MVGU University premises, he rushed to Jaipur Airport and contacted IndiGo Airlines officers and lodged a complaint about the damage and loss sustained to his baggage and sought for suitable compensation. On 09.07.2021 the IndiGo Officials assured for fair and true investigation for the loss sustained to his baggage.

The Opposite Parties has raised preliminary objections regarding the case filed against the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, a non existence entity, when the fact remains the tickets were issued by the Opposite Parties.

As regards the contention of the Opposite Parties is that this Commission does not possess the territorial jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the contractual  Agreement between the Complainant and Inter Globe Aviation Limited, the Courts of New Delhi alone would posses jurisdiction to hear the dispute, the parties to the complaint cannot determine jurisdiction. Consumer complaint could be filed where either of Complainant and Opposite Party resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arose. In view of the fact that the Complainant is residing within jurisdiction of this Commission and that part cause of action had arisen within the Jurisdiction of this Commission, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to decide the present dispute.

        Though the Complainant submitted that his checked in baggage was broke open and a sum of Rs.35,000/- was missing along with 2 shirts, on his arrival at Jaipur Airport, he had given complaint about the loss only on 08.07.2021 the next day of his travel if at all his baggage is broke open at the Airport on 07.07.2021 the Complainant ought to have raised the issue the same day to the Airport Authorities or to the IndiGo Airlines. Moreover as rightly pointed out by the Opposite Parties, as per Ex.A-1, the booking of tickets by the Complainant is governed by the rules and conditions of carriage. As per clause 11.2(o), customers are advised not to check in such items as check-in Baggage which are valuable or fragile and if such items are checked in as checked-in Baggage customers agrees to carry such items at their own risk and cost. Currency are not allowed to be carried in Checked-in Baggage. However the Complainant had kept currency notes in the checked-in Baggage contrary to the terms of carriage, without prior disclosure about the valuables to the Opposite Parties. For the e-mail communication, Ex.A-5 by the Complainant regarding the alleged theft, the Opposite Parties had investigated the matter and also by way of reply mail Exs.A-7, Ex.A-8 had informed the Complainant that they had investigated the matter and found no suspicious movement at the airport and further informed the Complainant to check the CCTV footage with the Airport Authority, which the Complainant failed to follow up with the Airport Authority.

           The Opposite Parties relied on the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interglobe Aviation Ltd, Vs.N.Satchidanand, (2011) 7 SCC 463, wherein it was observed that conditions of the carriage are binding on the parties. The mere fact that a passenger may not read or may not demand a copy does not mean that he will not be bound by the terms of the contract of carriage, which is applicable to the present case as the Complainant is bound by the condition of carriage.

Reliance was also placed on the order of the Hon’ble National Commission, in Shiv Garg Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Others in R.P No.28 of 2008 decided on 24.04.2018, where it was observed that as per the terms and conditions of carriage, there is no liability on the part of the Airlines to compensate the Petitioner for the valuable items since the articles were being carried by the Petitioner contrary to the instructions of the Airlines, which is also applicable to the present case, as the Complainant has carried currency notes in violation of the terms and conditions of the carriage.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that as against the terms and conditions of the carriage which are binding on the Complainant as mentioned in Ex.A-1 the Complainant had carried currency in checked in baggage and even otherwise the Complainant also failed to prove the loss of money and 2 shirts by cogent evidence. The Opposite Parties had acted promptly on the complaint raised by the Complainant and had taken steps to investigate the alleged loss and reported to the Complainant about no such suspicious activity on 07.07.2021 as alleged by the Complainant, through e-mails. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence they are not liable to compensate the Complainant. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 & 3:-

As discussed and decided point no.1 as against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the Complaint and/or for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 20^th of October 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1		Departing Flight from Chennai to Bengaluru,Bengaluru to Chennai
Ex.A2		IndiGo-Boarding pass (Jaipur  to Mumbai,Mumbai to Chennai)
Ex.A3		Return Ticket
Ex.A4		Purpose of Travel (Ph.D Pre-Viva Voce)
Ex.A5		Email Letter dispatched to Ms.Anjali Nair, IndiGo Airlines Corporate Office
Ex.A6		IndiGo Airlines – Response No.1
Ex.A7		IndiGo Airlines – Response No.2
Ex.A8		IndiGo Airlines – Response No.3
Ex.A9		Baggage Broke-open Image
Ex.A10		Grievance Detail:2882206

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1		A true copy of the Letter of Authority dated 22nd  June 2022 and a true copy of the Board Resolution dated 30th August 2018.
Ex.B2		A true copy of the Certificate of Incorporation of InterGlobe Aviation Limited.
Ex.B3		A true copy of the InterGlobe Aviation Limited CoC, as applicable on the date of booking.
Ex.B4		True copies of the screenshot from the official records of InterGlobe Aviation Limited reflecting the Complainant's bookings and travel on 7th July 2021.
Ex.B5		True copies of the screenshot from the official records of InterGlobe Aviation Limited reflecting the baggage details of the Complainant.
Ex.B6		A true copy of the email communication dated 9th  July 2021 from the official records of InterGlobe Aviation Limited.
Ex.B7		A true copy of email dated 15th July 2021 from the official records of InterGlobe Aviation Limited staff at Jaipur airport.
Ex.B8		A true copy of the screenshot from the official records of InterGlobe Aviation Limited indicating the Complainant's telephonic conversation with a staff member of Inter Globe Aviation Limited,
Ex.B9		A true copy of the screenshot of InterGlobe Aviation Limited's records indicating the Complainant's travel on 9th July 2021.
Ex.B10		True copies of the observations recorded by the staff at the airports at Chennai, Bangalore, and Jaipur, contained within emails dated 9th July 2021 and 10th July 2021.
Ex.B11		True copy of the email dated 21st July 2021 from the official records of InterGlobe Aviation Limited.
Ex.B12		True copy of the email dated 23rd August 2021 from the official records of InterGlobe Aviation Limited.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT