DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Complaint Case No : 165 OF 2010

R.B.T. No: 437 OF 2010

Date  of  Institution  :   11.03.2010

Date   of   Decision  :   16.11.2011

Ashok Kumar Sethi, R/o #97, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]      The General Manager, Go Air Lines (India Pvt. Ltd.), Paper Box House Office, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400093.

[2]      The Manager, Yatra.Com Travel Agency, SCO No.16-17, Sec. 9-D, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                    PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU              MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh.Vijay Singh Kaundal, Adv for the Complainant.

Sh.Maninder Singh, Adv. proxy for Sh.P.M. Goel, Adv. for OP No.1.

OP No.2 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

[1]            The instant complaint relates to alleged deficiency in service by the OPs for non-delivery of luggage at the place of arrival of the Complainant.

                Briefly stated, the Complainant had booked three air tickets through OP No.2 for traveling from Delhi to Cochin. The Complainant booked one ticket for himself and two tickets were booked for his friends. The Complainant has stated that before boarding the flight, he handed over his luggage to the OPs. Unfortunately, when the Complainant reached Cochin Airport, the luggage was untraceable. Despite various visits by the Complainant to the Cochin Airport, the luggage was not delivered to him. The Complainant, hence, visited the office of the OPs a number of times to collect his luggage, but the same was not traceable. The Complainant has given a list of articles, which has been lost. The Complainant has also attached bills of certain articles purchased by him against the loss for the perusal of this Forum.

                As the luggage of the Complainant was not recovered, he issued a legal notice through his counsel to the OPs. However, the luggage has not yet been traced.  The Complainant has thus, filed the instant complaint, praying for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and negligence on the part of OPs in the interest of justice.  

[2]            After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

                OP Nos.1 in its reply had taken the preliminary objection that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant to file a complaint against them. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

                On merits, the OP No.1 admitted the factual position of travel and loss of luggage by the Complainant. However, they have denied all other allegations made against them. They have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Complainant.

                OP No.2 in reply has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against them, as no cause of action, either wholly or partly, has arisen against them, within the jurisdiction of this Forum. No specific allegations have been made against them by the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation from OP No. 2 for any alleged loss suffered by him. OP No. 2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

[3]            Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

[4]            On the date of final hearing i.e.15.11.2011, none appeared on behalf of OP No.2. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) in absence of the OP No.2.

[5]            We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and OP No.1 and have gone through the documents on record.

[6]            The learned counsel for the Complainant, at the time of arguments brought our attention to the fact that the Complainant, along with his friends had taken a Go Airline flight, when his luggage was lost. Despite, having contacted the officials of Go Airlines a number of times, the luggage had not yet been traced. The Complainant made a prayer for adequate compensation and for the loss of the articles which was lying in the luggage and for harassment and mental torture.

[7]            Interestingly, in the array of parties, we find no mention of Go Airlines. The Complainant has stated that he booked the tickets in question through OP No.2 (Yatra.Com Travel Agency) for traveling on Go Airlines.  OP No.1 is the General Manager, Go Air Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. and OP No. 2 is the Manager, Yatra.Com Travel Agency. The Complainant has not alleged any specific harassment or deficiency in service caused to him by either the General Manager, Go Airlines or the Manager, Yatra.Com Travel Agency. All the allegations are with regard to loss of luggage by the ‘concerned officials of the Air authorities’. The ‘concerned officials of the Air authorities’ or ‘Go Airlines’ have not been impleaded as parties to the complaint. 

[8]            The Hon’ble National Commission in case Director General of Police, Chandigarh & Anr. Vs. Jeevan Lata, II(2006) CPJ 119 (NC) has held that the agents of insurer are not liable to the insured.  The relevant portion is quoted below :-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Insurance – Agents of insurer – Liability of insurer – Appellants, agents of insurance company – Sole liability of company to pay entire awarded amount – Order of State Commission, holding appellants and insurer to pay amount and costs, modified to such extent.”  

                The above cited appeal had been filed against the orders of Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission, U.T., wherein the complaint had been allowed and the Officers along with the insurance company had been made liable to compensate the claimant.

                The Hon’ble National Commission in the aforementioned case held :-

“…..It was, thus, the liability of Insurance Company to pay the entire awarded amount to the respondent.  Order of State Commission, therefore, deserves to be modified to that extent.”

                 The order of the Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission, U.T. was accordingly modified to the extent that only the Insurance Company was liable to pay the awarded amount to the complainant and not the individuals.  The relevant portion is reproduced below:-

“4. Accordingly, while allowing appeal, aforesaid order dated 25.3.1996 is modified to the extent that it is  Oriental Insurance Company and not appellant No.1 who is liable to pay the awarded amount to the respondent.  No order as to cost.”

From above, it is apparent that a complaint cannot be allowed when the correct parties have not been impleaded in the claim.

[9]            In the present complaint also, no specific allegations have been made against either the General Manager, Go Airlines or the Manager, Yatra.Com Travel Agency. Hence, relying on the above judgment, we also deem it appropriate to dismiss this complaint due to non-joinder of correct parties.

[10]          This complaint is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

[11]          Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16.11.2011                                                                                        

                                                          Sd/- 

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)