PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 4th day of March 2022
C.C. 248/2018
Complainant
Cyriac M. U.
S/o. Ulahannan
Manalodi House
Pullormpara P O
Kozhikode – 673 603
Opposite Parties
- The Manager
Indo Foreign Travel Links Private Limited
Kashkand Building
Bank Road
Kozhikode – 673 001
- The Manager
Spicejet Ltd.
319, Udaya Vihar, Phase IV
Gurgaoan – 122016
Office at Karipur
Kozhikode – 673
ORDER
By Sri. V. BALAKRISHNAN – MEMBER
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the Complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant, along with six others, went to Lakhimpur in UP for attending a marriage ceremony. The return journey was on 11/07/2018 for which the party consisting of seven members including the complainant had booked return tickets through the first opposite party in the flights operated by the second opposite party from Lucknow to Kozhikode via Hyderabad and Bangalore.
3. While boarding the flight on 11/07/2018 from Lucknow, all the baggage was checked and received by the employees of the Indigo Airlines. On 12/07/2018, on the last lap of the journey, they boarded Bangalore -Kozhikode flight No. SG 3253 operated by the second opposite party and they landed at Kozhikode at about 11.15 AM. Before boarding the flight at Bangalore, operated by the second opposite party, all the baggage was checked and received by the employees of the second opposite party. All tags of the baggage were affixed in the name of one Mary Chandy, who was a member of the group.
4. While waiting for the baggage, the complainant was informed by an employee of the second opposite party that one of his bags was missing at Kozhikode. A complaint was lodged with the second opposite party at Kozhikode Airport regarding the matter and waited for the bag. After sometime, the complainant was informed that the bag could not be traced and issued a Baggage Irregularity Report. It was promised that the bag could be traced out and returned within two or three days. Thereafter the complainant continued to contact the second opposite party. On 30/07/2018 it was informed that the bag could not be traced and offered a sum of INR 2600/- at the rate of INR 200/- per Kg, since the baggage weighed 13 Kgs. The bag was containing 10 silk saris and gents clothing total worth Rs. 70,200/-. The bag itself costs Rs. 4,950/-. So the offer of the second opposite party was not acceptable.
5. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 85,000/- as compensation for financial loss on account of the loss of baggage and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with the cost of the litigation.
6. The opposite parties were set ex-parte by our learned predecessors-in-office.
7. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the
part of the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the claim for compensation is allowable? If so,
what is the quantum?
(3) Reliefs and costs.
8. The evidence was recorded by our learned predecessors-in- office which consists of the affidavit of the complainant and Exts. A1 to A10.
9. We heard the complainant.
10. Points 1 and 2 : The complainant has approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs. 85,000/- for the monetary loss sustained due to loss of baggage and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and anxiety caused to him due to the actions and omissions of the opposite parties.
11. The complainant filed affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint. Ext. A2, the copy of the ticket and A3, the copy of the boarding pass show that the complainant travelled from Bangalore to Kozhikode in flight No. SG 3253 operated by the second opposite party on 12/07/2018. Ext. A4 Baggage Irregularity Report shows that one trolley bag containing cloths and perfume was missing at Kozhikode Airport. Ext. A8 e-mail dated 30/07/2018 shows that the second opposite party could not trace out the baggage and offered a sum of INR 2600/- @ INR 200 per Kg as the baggage weighed 13 Kg.
12. The complainant was not cross examined and his evidence stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have chosen to remain absent and they have not turned up to give their version. The complainant’s case regarding the loss of baggage due to the deficiency of service of the second opposite party stands proved through the affidavit filed by him and the documents produced and marked as Exts. A1 to A10.
13. The opposite parties have offered a paltry sum of INR 2600/- as compensation as per Ext. A8 and it is not acceptable to the complainant. It is stated in Ext. A8 that SpiceJet’s policy for untraceable baggage stipulates that the compensation is to be processed @ INR 200 per Kg (2600 INR for 13 Kg). But they remained ex-parte and no document showing the policy for untraceable baggage is before this Commission. According to the complainant, the bag itself costs Rs.4,950/- and this is proved by Ext. A10 warranty certificate of the bag showing MRP as Rs. 4,950/-. It is stated in the affidavit that the bag contained costly saris, men’s clothing and other items worth Rs.80,000/-. But no bills or documents supporting the claim are forth coming. However, it is in evidence that the complainant and others were returning after attending a marriage ceremony. Naturally, there would be costly dress items in the bag. The weight of the bag was 13 Kg. Considering the entire fact and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. Complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
14. The first opposite party is only a booking agent for the tickets. The flight was operated by the second opposite party and it was due to the deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party that the baggage was lost. So the first opposite party is not liable and is only to be exonerated. Compensation has to be paid by the second opposite party.
15. Point 3. In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
(a) CC 248/2018 is allowed in part.
(b) The second opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to the complainant as
compensation.
(c) The second opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/-
(Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the
proceedings
(d) The first opposite party is exonerated.
(e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Commissionon this the 4thday of February 2022.
Date of Filing: 05/09/ 2018
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the invitation card
Ext. A2 – Copy of the ticket
Ext. A3 – Copy of the boarding pass
Ext. A4 – Baggage Irregularity Report
Ext. A5 – Letter dated 31/07/2018
Ext. A6 – G-mail dated 15/07/2018
Ext. A7 – Copy of the G-mail dated 20/07/2018
Ext. A8 – E-mail dated 30/07/2018
Ext. A9 – Letter dated 01/08/2018
Ext. A10 – Warranty certificate
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
NIL
Witnesses for the Complainant
NIL
Witnesses for the opposite parties
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
