By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to pay the cost incurred for collecting the luggage from opposite party which was not provided in time and also to get cost and compensation due to the deficiency of service.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The Complainant is residing on the above address and the opposite party is the Branch Manager of JET AIRWAYS, Office at Karipoor Airport, Malappuram District and conducting business on the above address. The complainant had travelled in opposite party's flight bearing Nos.9W 844752 and 9W 421 JET AIRWAYS on 17.08.2016 from Jeddah to Mumbai and then Mumbai to Karipoor airport respectively and the complainant arrived Karipoor airport on 18.08.2016. The complainant has entrusted his luggage at the cargo room of opposite party at Jeddha and the after arrival at Karipoor airport, the complainant had wait for delivery of luggage, then the opposite party told to the complainant that the cargo is delayed and it is happening occasionally and usual practice is to deliver the luggage at the complainant's house within 12 hours with the expenses of opposite party. The complainant had wait for luggage and contacted the opposite party though phone, then after repeated request and reminders, the opposite party asked the complainant to collect the luggage from Karipoor airport with the expenses of opposite party and on 20.08.2016 the complainant hired an Innova Car bearing Reg. No. KL 73 A 1449 from his place at Moolankavu, Sulthan Bathery and paid Rs.4200/- and collected luggage from opposite party's office. Altogether the expenses for collecting the luggage is Rs.6,000/-. The complainant has demanded the expenses incurred by him for collecting the luggage, but the opposite party twisted from their word and not paid the amount to complainant and due to the negligence of opposite party the complainant has suffered huge financial loss and mental agony and the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss and injury suffered by the complainant. The complainant has caused to send a legal notice on 30.08.2016 to opposite party with a demand to compensate the loss and injury sustained by the complainant. The opposite party received the notice and send a reply with statements that they are collecting the information and on completion of investigation they offered a detailed reply, but it was not happened and it is understood that the investigation of opposite party is proved the negligence on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has neither contacted the complainant nor given compensation and expenses incurred by the complainant and the opposite party caused unlawful loss to complainant and the act of opposite party is high degree of unfair trade practices, thus this complaint. Therefore the complainant prays this Hon'ble forum to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- with 18% interest from 20.08.2016 till realization as the hire of Innova car and other expenses incurred by the complainant and Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation and Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/-as cost of this proceeding and cost of legal notice.
3. Notices were served to opposite parties and opposite party No.1 filed version. Opposite party No.2 filed a Memo stating that he is adopting the version of opposite party No.1 filed on 24.01.2017. Opposite Party No.1 filed version stating that the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no consumer dispute as contemplated under the Act warranting adjudication by this Hon'ble Forum. There is no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands. He has suppressed the true, correct and material facts and has set out incorrect, unsustainable and misleading allegations and claims, which as well disentitles him from claiming or getting any relief from this Hon'ble Forum. The attempt appears to be to make unjust enrichment at the expense of the opposite party, that too by making false, baseless and frivolous allegations. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant complaint, as per section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed as the answering opposite party do not have any branch office or carry on business within the' territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Forum. No cause of action wholly or partly have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum, therefore the instant complaint is liable to dismissed on this ground as well. M/s. Jet Airways [India] Ltd has not been properly impleaded in the above matter, and the compliant seen filed as against the Manager alone is not proper, legal or sustainable. Even going by the allegations and claims contained in the compliant, no complaint would lie as against the manager. Jet Airways (India) Limited is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andhert (E), Mumbai- 400 099, Maharashtra. The airport authority and ground handling agency as well are also necessary and proper parties for an effective and proper adjudication of the matter. Hence the above compliant is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. For the aforementioned reasons it is prayed that the maintainability of the above complaint may be heard as a preliminary issue before proceeding with the matter any further. It is further submitted that the opposite party's airline is India's premier airline in the private sector committed interalia, to establish, maintain and to provide safe, efficient, and adequate and to coordinated air transport for the carriage of passengers, baggage and freight. The opposite party has largely achieved what it set out to do build a world class airline delivering a world class service and in the process, set new standards in the Indian Aviation Sector, for its competitors to emulate. The opposite party's airline is one of the most preferred airline despite stiff competition and has the distinction of being repeatedly adjudged India's best domestic airline, as it has been meticulously adhering to all the rules and practices for running its airline service. The standards established by the opposite party is comparable to the best anywhere in the world. It is submitted that collection of the check in baggage from the collection point/conveyor belt in the Airport is a voluntary process and the airline or airport authorities does not scrutiny or check the same. Non-collection of baggage by the traveller is negligence on the part of traveller and if it is found missing, the authorities take all reasonable steps to retrieve the same to return it. There may be occasions when that do not happen as well. Immediate alert with the baggage tag helps recovery of mistakenly collected and lost baggage. All possible measures are taken by the opposite party to avoid and reduce incidents of missing baggage. It is in spite of the best care, caution and attention on the part of the opposite a that the compliant of missing baggage happened to be there from the part of the complainant. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the opposite party submit the following regarding the case and claim seen set out in the above complaint. The complainant travelled from Jeddah to Mumbai by flight No.9W 521 and reached Mumbai Airport on 17.08.2016. It was the duty of the complainant to complete the customs formalities at Mumbai due to which the delay in recovery of the baggage occurred. Since the complainant failed to complete the customs formalities for clearance of the baggage, the delay occurred. This delay is not attributable to the opposite party and hence opposite party cannot be held responsible for the same. On the next day the complainant left Mumbai to Calicut by flight No.9W 421 in the domestic sector and reached Calicut Airport on 18.08.2016. Complainant's hand bag was retrieved at the step ladder of flight on 17th August 2016. The claim LRT tag was given to him. Before taking the hand bag, the complainant has been briefed by staff to remove the valuable from the bag. The complainant was also informed to collect the same at Mumbai arrival before clearing Customs. It is mandatory for every guest arriving in India, to comply with the necessary Customs formalities to clear his/her baggage at the first point of entry in India. However in the instant case, complainant was negligent and he forgot to collect his hand baggage in Mumbai, being the first point of entry in India. The complainant has not collected the bag at Mumbai Airport for the reasons best known to him and same forwarded next day to Calicut at the expense of opposite party. Since the complainant himself was negligent failing to collect his bag from Mumbai airport as was advised to him the opposite party cannot be held responsible for his acts and omissions. Much after reaching the Calicut airport, the complainant informed the opposite party that his check in baggaqe were found missing. But the complaint did not produce the baggage tag evidencing entrustment of the baggage and facilitating identification of the same. On receipt of the said information, even though no further action was possible or contemplated in the absence of the baggage tag, being a reputed and responsible airline, as a customer friendly measure, one Property Irregularity Report was raised immediately by the staff of the Opposite Parties airline. By getting the information, the opposite party had successfully traced the baggage of complainant at the step ladder of flight. Further as a gesture of good will the opposite party agreed to transfer his bag from Mumbai to Calicut at the cost of the opposite party who is now being made a party to frivolous proceedings. On 20.08.2016 the complainant had collected his baggage from this opposite party without raising any demur or objection. The opposite party has done their duties in responsible and diligent manner and servicing guest's is their utmost priority as they believe in the concept" "Customer is the king". This being the true facts and circumstances of the matter all the allegations and claims contrary to the same contained in the complaint are not proper, correct or sustainable, lacking in truth and bonafides, besides being baseless. The averments in the complaint that the complainant has entrusted his luggage at the cargo room of opposite party at Jeddha and after arrival at Calicut Airport he had waited for delivery of luggage, that the opposite party told to the complainant that the cargo is delayed and happening occasionally and usual practice is to deliver the luggage at the complainants house within 12 hours with the expenses of opposite party, that after repeated requests and reminders the opposite party asked the complainant to collect the luggage from Calicut Airport with the expenses of opposite party and on 20.08.2016 the complainant hired an Innova car bearing Reg. No. KL-73-A-1449 and paid Rs.4,200/-, that altogether the expenses for collecting the luggage is Rs.6,000/-, that the complainant has demanded the expenses but the opposite party twisted from their word, that due to the negligence of the opposite party the complainant has huge financial loss and mental agony and the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss and injury suffered by the complainant etc. are not proper, correct or sustainable and the same are specifically disputed and denied.
4. The further allegation that the opposite party send a reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant stating that they are collecting the information and on completion of investigation they offered a detailed reply, but it was not happened and it is understood that the investigation of opposite party proved that the negligence is on the part of the opposite party, that the opposite party has neither contacted the complainant and the act of opposite party is high degree of unfair trade practice etc. are not true or correct hence specifically denied. It is submitted that the opposite party issued a detailed reply to the legal notice of the complainant on 07.12.2016 which was willfully suppressed and not produced by the complainant. The copy of the final reply dated 07.12.2016 is produced here with. The opposite party do not admit the alleged loss, injury and hardship claimed to have been suffered by the complainant. No loss, injury, hardship or damage has been caused or occasioned to the complainant on account of the opposite party. In any view of the matter the opposite party is not liable or responsible for the alleged loss or damage. There was no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as seen alleged or otherwise on the part of the opposite party. The complainant does not have any cause of action as against the opposite parties to institute the above complaint. The alleged cause of action seen stated in the complaint is not proper, correct, sustainable or adequate. The entire complaint is based on conjunctures and surmises and is completely devoid of any merits against the answering Opposite Party. The above complaint is also based on an incorrect rendering of the facts against the Opposite Party and is without any actionable cause, as the complainant has miserably failed to disclose any facts to support his allegations against the Opposite Party. There is no truth or bonafides on the part of the complainant in filing the above complaint. The complainant is not entitled to nor is the opposite party liable or responsible for any of the reliefs seen claimed in the complaint. The amount seen claimed is not only baseless and unsustainable, but also highly excessive, exorbitant and disproportionate. The complaint is false and frivolous seen indulged in an experimental and speculative venture with malafide, avaricious and other ulterior motives and the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs of the opposite parties. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint awarding compensatory costs of the opposite party as contemplated under Section.26 of the Consumer Protection Act. This opposite party crave leave to lead adequate evidence in this regard at appropriate time in these proceedings.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 documents were marked. Opposite party No.1 also filed proof affidavit and he is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the Boarding pass issued by the opposite party to the complainant, wherein from Mumbai to KKD. Ext.A2 is the Ticket issued by opposite party to the complainant for JEDDAH TO MUMBAI. Ext.A3 is the Lawyer Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.A4 is the Reply Notice to the Lawyer Notice. Ext.B1 is the Reply Notice to the complainant by opposite party. Ext.B2 is the Letter of Authorization given by the JET Airways (India) Limited to Orlando Francis Rodrigues for appearing before the Forum. Ext.B3(1) is the Boarding Pass issued by the opposite party to the complainant from Mumbai to KKD. Ext.B3(2) is the Luggage booking form issued by the opposite party to the complainant, wherein one Trolley bag is booked. Ext.B3(3) is a Slip issued by Jet Airways.
6. On considering the complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
7. Point No.1:- Ext.A2 is the Ticket shows that the ticket issued to travel from Jeddah to Mumbai and Mumbai to Calicut. Since the both journey is included in the one ticket it is believed that it is continuous journey and Ext.B3(2) shows that the Luggage Trolley bag is booked from Jeddah to Calicut. OPW1 deposed before the Forum that '' There is no direct service from Jeddah to Calicut that is why we have issued ticket from Jeddah to Bombay- Calicut as our convenience. There will be various stops for a passenger traveling from states to Kerala and the passenger need not check his baggages from each stops. In ordinary case if the baggage is lost we will deliver the baggage to the customer at our own expenses. Our case is that no clearance is made from Mumabi. But in Ext.A4 it is not stated so. The produced documents does not contain that in each station customer clearance is required. Ground handling agency is working under our authority. About the parcel missing the airport authority has no control over it. All the baggages of this customer excluding the hand bag is packed in cargo. If any bag is missed we are responsible for intimating it to the customer''.
8. On overall evidence and depositions of opposite parties we are of the opinion that any way the baggage is booked from Jeddah to Calicut and OPW1 deposed before the Forum that in all stops the customer need not check the baggages and the delay in getting the baggage is also admitted by the opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that not providing luggages in time and if it is misplaced the opposite parties are liable to deliver the luggages to the customer with their own expenses. Hence we found that not paying the cost spend by the complainant to take delivery of the delayed luggage is a clear case of deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the cost spend for collecting the baggages and also liable to pay cost and compensation. Hence the Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.4,200/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Two Hundred) which is spend by the complainant for collecting the luggages and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order. Failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for whole amount till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of July 2017.
Date of Filing:14.12.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Jibin Joy. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Orlanto. Senior Customer Service Assistant, Jet Airways,
Kozhikode.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Boarding Pass.
A2(1). Notice
A2(2). Ticket. Dt:16.08.2016.
A2(3). Ticket.
A3. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:30.08.2016.
A4. Reply Notice. Dt:08.09.2016.
A5. Tourist Taxi Receipt.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Reply Notice. Dt:08.09.2016.
B2. Authorization Letter. Dt:02.05.2017.
B3(1). Boarding Pass.
B3(2). Luggage Booking Form.
B3(3). Slip issued by Jet Airways.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
