Tripura

West Tripura

CC/48/2015

Md. Muslem Miah & 1 Another. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Nodal Officer, Spice Jet Airlines Limited & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.B.Bhattacharjee, Mr.S.Bhattacharjee, Mr.K.Nath, Mr.P.R.Barman.

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-   48  of   2015

1. Md. Muslem Miah,
S/o- Late Wali Ahamed,
South Ramnagar, P.S.- West Agartala,
P.O.- Agartala, West Tripura.
     
2. Mst. Rifat Bagam,
W/O- Muslem Miah,
South Ramnagar, P.S.- West Agartala,
P.O. Agartala. West Tripura.            ........Complainants.
    
                 ______VERSUS______

1. Spice Jet Airlines Limited,
Represented by its Nodal Officer,
319 Udyog Vihar, Phase- IV,
Gurgaon- 122 016, Haryana(India).

2. Spice Jet Airlines Ltd.,
Agartala Customer Care Office, 
Represented by its Senior Officer, 
Agartala Office, 
Airport Authority of India, 
Agartala Airport, Agartala- 799009, 
Tripura West.                 ........Opposite parties.
    
      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L
For the Complainant        : Sri P. Roy Barman, 
                      Sri Bikramjit Bhattacharjee,
                      Sri Samarjit Bhattacharjee,
                      Sri Koushik Nath,
                      Advocates.               

For the Opposite Parties        : Mr. Pankaj Deb,     
                      Authorized representative.                                                   

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  14.03.2016

J U D G M E N T
        One Muslem Miah and Rifat Begam filed this complaint before this District Forum U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is  alleged that they went to Kolkata by the Spice Jet Airlines but after arrival at Kolkata they found their luggage missing. Opposite Party, Spice Jet could not place the luggage to them after 4 days stay at Kolkata. So, they had to return and filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs.5,70,000/-.

2.        Opposite party, Spice Jet appeared, filed W.S. denying the claim. It is stated that the Spicejet authority had no fault and the liability for loss or damage of baggage is limited to Rs.200/- per Kg with a maximum of Rs.3000/-. The carrier assumes no liability for fragile or  perishable article. 

3.        On the basis of rival contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
    i) Whether the luggage of the petitioners were lost for the fault of spice Jet authority?
    ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service by Spice Jet and also the cost of luggage?

4.         Petitioner, Muslem Miah and his wife produced photocopy of Airline PNR, Boarding card, Luggage Number, Baggage Report, GD entry, Medical Prescription, Money Receipt, photocopy of Indigo Airline PNR. Those are exhibited as Exhibit- 1 series. Petitioner side also examined one witness, Muslem Miah, the petitioner himself.

5.        O.P. Spicejet on the other hand examined one witness, Mr. Pankaj Deb, Authorized representative of the Spicejet.
        On the basis of evidence we shall now determine the points.
        Findings & decision and reasons for decision: 
6.        We have gone through the documents filed. Copy of Airlines PNR, Boarding Card, and also evidence of the petitioner. We are satisfied that the petitioners were passengers of the Spicejet airlines on 6th April, 2015. They availed the flight SG 658 1710. Baggage was found missing, so Muslem Miah reported to the Officer in charge, Airport Police Station about such missing. Spicejet authority sent a cheque amounting to Rs.1800/-. Petitioner accepted it and stated that further amount is to be paid as decided by the Consumer Court. So, the fact of missing of the baggage is admitted and established fact. Total weight of the baggage was 15+ 15 kg = 30 kg as found in the air ticket.  Petitioner stated in the application that in the luggage there was ornaments valued Rs.60,000/-. There are wearing apparels, Adhar Card, mark sheet, original admit card, ration card, passport. In respect of all documents the petitioner can get the duplicate. For obtaining those duplicate certificates he might have to spend some amount. He is not supposed to keep the important documents in the luggage, it should be insured and the important articles kept are to be disclosed to the carrier. 

7.        One is not supposed to put the ornaments  in the luggage the ornaments are to be insured and matter is to be disclosed to the carrier before placing in the luggage. So in our considered opinion the petitioners are not entitled to get any amount for the loss of the documents and ornaments. It is admitted fact that the petitioners were going to Kolkata for treatment purpose. Their treatment was not hampered because of loss of luggage. Some inconvenience had to face for loss of wearing apparels for that wearing apparels had to purchase. The value of the wearing apparels were not mentioned. As per the terms in case of lost baggage the Spicejet authority is under liability to pay Rs.3000/- only @ 200/- per Kg. So, Spicejet authority offered Rs.1800/- which is less that Rs.3000/- also. Annexure R-1 is the terms and conditions written. But it is one sided agreement. Whether it was broadcasted and placed before the petitioner not clearly stated. As per Carriers Act, 1865 the carrier made  limit  the liability by special contract. No such contract was signed. 

8.        Learned advocate for the petitioner referred the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. There the limits of liability of the carrier is Rs.1,25,000/- Gold France  per passenger to Rs.2,50,000 Gold France. This is applicable in the international flight. Application of amended convention to India not placed before us. Any notification in the Official gazette by Central Govt. also not placed. In this case the carrier failed to prove that he and his agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage of the luggage. In case of carriage of registered luggage and goods the liability  of the carrier is limited to sum of 250 gm /kg as per Carriage by Air Act, 1972. But this is not applicable in India Domestic flight. Petitioner  did not give any description in assessing the value of the wearing apparels. About 28 kg wearing apparels were lost and O.P. was responsible for that. In our considered view, the value per kg will not be less than Rs.500/-. Therefore, Rs.14,000/- is awarded for loss of wearing apparels. O.P. Jet Airways had deficiency of service, caused inconvenience to the petitioner. They had to purchase new cloths and faced many difficulties due to the deficiency of service of the O.P. Spicejet. So for the deficiency of service we consider that the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.10,000/- from the O.P. Spicejet. In addition petitioners are entitled to get Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation. Thus in total, petitioners are entitled to get Rs.27,000/- . Both the points are decided accordingly.

9.        In view of our above findings the petition is partly allowed. Opposite party Spicejet authority is directed to pay this Rs.27,000/- to the petitioner within 2 months from today. In case they failed to pay the amount, the amount will carry 9% interest P.A.                       
Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA, 
WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA,
 WEST TRIPURA.