D.O.F:19/04/2022

                                                                                                  D.O.O:29/09/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.69/2022

Dated this, the 29^th day of September 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                          : MEMBER

Karipodivalappil Sreejith 43 years

S/o. Kunhiraman,

R/at Souparnika, Arattukadavu,

Post  - Bekal, Kasaragod. 671318                                                  : Complainant

(Adv:. T.C Narayanan)

And

The Manager,

Interglobe Aviation Ltd

(doing business as INIGO)

Corporate office, Level 1, Tower C,

Glbal Business Park, Mehraoli,

Gurgon Road, Gurgon, Hariyana. 122002.                            : Opposite Party

(Adv: Suneer Ismail)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

          The case of the complainant is that he was a passenger in opposite party flight from Singapore to Chennai, then to Bangalore and to Manglore Airport via flight.  He reached Mangalore Airport at 3.30 PM.  His luggage contains smart watch, chocolates, liquor, dress materials, suit case, dress in total Rs. 30,300/-.

          He Noticed his luggage come via conveyor belt damaged, suit case is broken, liqures bottle damaged.  On complaint opposite party refused to compensation for the damages, till date, no reply.  The complainant is seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of litigation.

          The opposite party filed its written version.  Opposite party contended that opposite party is bad for non joinder and also lacks territorial jurisdiction.  There is no deficiency in service.  The complainant concealed material facts regarding dates of the complainant.  Further complainant handed over his bags, did not provide any declaration regarding the items lost.  As per handling terms, complainant failed to disclose particulars necessary.  Baggage was delivered to him.  He did not lodge a complaint with airport authorities and failed to bring on record, baggage of good quality.  The complainant instituted the present complaint without any evidence on record.  He successfully travelled from Singapore to Mangalore with the checked in baggage.  The complainant was aware that opposite party is not responsible for loss or damage to articles not permitted by law that complainant willingly kept liquors in the checked baggage.  The staff of Indigo aviation limited offered a voucher for Indian Rupee Rs. 1500/- that complainant refused to accept the same.  The complainant has not placed any documentary evidence on record.  They tried to solve the dispute but complainant did not agree for any settlement.  In additions, Indigo assumes no liability for wear and tear for checked as baggage’s.  Aviation department acted in accordance with law, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          The complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext A1 to A6.  Ext A1 is copy of Air ticket and Ext A2 to A6 photographs of the damaged bag.  The opposite party did adduced evidence nor availed.  Opportunity to cross exam the complainant.

          Following points arised for consideration in the case.

1. Whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the complaint?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service negligence from Opposite Party?
3. Whether complainant is entitled for compensation if so for what is the relief?

All the points are taken together for consideration.  The grievance of the complainant is that he is a bonafide passenger in the opposite party flight all the way from Singapore to Mangalore.  It is evident that he carried luggage and paid charges for the same because luggage is over and above the quality approved for free.  The fact that the luggage carried by him is not available for delivery through the conveyor belt on arrival but surprisingly the suit case not only broken but its contents were not available for collection by the complainant.  The opposite party has not denied the fact that the complainant did not carry any luggage and paid charges in addition to free luggage.  The opposite party has no case that the suit case is damaged and articles are lost due to any kind of acts commission or omission or negligence on the part of the complainant with a purpose to claim damages.  It is a true  that every passenger while carrying his luggage during air travel will have articles of his own choice may be worth so many times the real value and very eager to get it safe while recording the destination without being damaged or lost.

     Further it is very strange and surprisingly to note that here is a service provider (Opposite party here in) in extent its support to a bonafide passenger who claims Rs 1 Lakh as compensation, where as opposite party is offering a pittance of Rs. 1500/- to a passenger from Singapore is really indignation rather than refusal to pacify the aggrieved person.

     The National Commission held in KLM airlines liable for deficiency in service in respect of a missing baggage piece of the complainant.  The commission held that the mental and physical harassment that a passenger, that, would undergo when he is required, after so many hours of an international journey, to collect his checked in baggage at the point of first disembarkation from such a flight in order to board a connecting domestic leg of the routing to the final destination and finds one of the checked in baggage pieces missing with no one from the international or the partner air carrier available to lift the proverbial little finger to help  him, would certainly amount to “injury” within the meaning of the term under section 14 (1) of the Consumer protection Act, entitling him to compensation”.  The judgement is greatly appreciated as in the present times there has been a surge of airline companies, however, there has not been an equal surge in the effective liability regime to hold airlines accountable.  Very often, consumers are rendered helpless against gross deficiency and negligence of airline companies despite paying a huge amount for the same.

     In truth the opposite party in not delivering the luggage safe to the air passenger on arrival amounts to series deficiency in service and negligence and thus not paying sufficient/legitimate amount of compensation rather quoting small amount as Rs. 1500/- is not acceptable.  Considering the fact that the luggage and articles there in are lost and even the suit case carried the articles is also seriously damaged as seen in the photograph not denied by the opposite party and therefore though no specific document or evidence available know the contents, its value still the commission is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-

     In the result the complaint is allowed in part opposite party is directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as damages for the lost luggage for and also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.

Sd/-                                                                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Copy of Air ticket

A2 to A6 – Photographs

      Sd/-                                                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/