Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/35

Sri Samarendra Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager and other. - Opp.Party(s)

self

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 35   of  2014

 

         Sri Samarendra Roy,
    S/O- Lt. Suresh Chandra Roy,
    Joynagar, Agartala,
    District- West Tripura.                  .......Complainant.

     ______VERSUS_____

     1. The Station Manager,
    Indigo Airlines,
    Ariprt Complex, 
    Bimangarh,
    West Tripura,

2. The Station Manager,
    Kolkata Airport,
    West Bengal,.            .......Opposite Parties.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

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

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

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant       : Sri A. K. Pal,
                  Sri A. K. Debnath and 
                  Miss Soma Roy,
                  Advocates.

        For the Opposite Parties    : Sri Rahul Kumar,
                          Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 08.04.15.

J U D G M E N T

         This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Samarendra Roy of Joynagar, Agartala, West Tripura for and on behalves of the his wife, Smt. Chnadana Roy and daughter, Smt. Suravee Roy against the O.Ps, namely the Station Manager, Indigo Airlines, Agartala Airport and the Station Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata Airport over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the wife and daughter of the complainant were travelling from Agartala to kolkata by IndiGo Airlines Flight No-6E 362 on 15.10.13. On arriving at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata, it was detected that one of the 2 checked-in baggages were missing. Immediately the complainant's daughter lodged property Irregularity Report (PIR) with the Station Manager, Dumdum Airport. The missing baggage contained 6 silk sarees, 25 cotton sarees wearing apparels, 2 pairs of footwears, 10 items of cosmetics, Gold and Silver ornaments  total worth Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant's daughter made a number of correspondence with the O.P. Airlines to return the missing baggage but all to no effect. Finding no other alternative, after waiting for about 2 months, the complainant serve an advocate's notice upon the O.Ps on 08.01.14. But it did not serve any fruitful purpose. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constitutes negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The complaint was contested by the O.Ps stating, interalia, that the complainant in his complaint alleged that the lost baggage was having goods worth Rs.1,50,000/-, but the complainant's daughter in her E-mail dated 22.10.13 addressed to the Customer Relations of the O.P. Airlines stated that the lost baggage was carrying goods worth Rs.15,000/-. So, it is crystal clear that the instant complaint was filed by the complainant with a view to extort money from the O.P. misleading the Forum. Further that, it would be seen from the Property Irregularity Report lodged by the complainant's daughter with the O.P. No.2  that the missing baggage was owing 7 kg only. As per clause 16.4 of the 'Conditions of Carriage', in case of loss of baggage  maximum compensation of Rs.200 per kg with a maximum of Rs.3000/- can be awarded. However, they assume no liability for fragile or perishable articles. The complainant has concealed the material fact before this Forum that the owner of the missing bag was requested by the O.Ps to collect Rs.1400/- as monetary compensation of the missing bag from the Airport Booking Counter of the O.Ps. It is also averred that, as per rule, a passenger is duty bound to declare if any valuables were being carried by him/ her in the checked in baggage, but in the present case no such declaration was made by them. It is denied that the O.Ps  were negligent and deficient in rendering service. 

4.        Neither the complainant nor the O.P. side has adduced oral evidence.
        FINDINGS:
5.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
Whether the O.Ps are liable for deficiency in service;
Whether the O.Ps are liable for making good the loss allegedly suffered by the complainant's wife and daughter due to loss of the missing baggage while travelling from Agartala to Kolkata by Indigo Airlines Flight No- 6E 362.

6.        We have already heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings and the documents on record filed by the parties meticulously.

7.         There is mo manner of dispute that on 15.10.13 the complainant's wife and daughter were booked to travel on IndiGo Airlines Flight no- 6E 362 from Agartala to Kolkata. They boarded the flight at 3.20 P.M.  On arrival at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport it was detected that one out of 2 checked-in baggages was missing. They brought this fact to the notice of the airport authority and lodged Property Irregularity Report(PIR) with the O.P. No.2 in prescribed form. The missing baggage could not be traced out and ever returned to them. It is the averment of the complainant that the missing baggage was having valuable items like a good number of silk and cotton sarees, wearing apparels, footwears and cosmetics, gold and silver ornament total worth Rs.1,50,000/-.

8.        In the E-mail dated 22.10.12 sent to the Customer Relations of the O.P Airlines by the complainant's daughter, Suravee Roy, a Co-passenger, it was clearly stated that the lost baggage contained items worth Rs.15,000/- which is found to be totally discrepant with that of the averment made in the complaint. From the Property Irregularity Report lodged with the O.P. Airlines makes it clear that the missing baggage was weighing 7 kg only. The complainant nowhere in his complaint disclosed the weight of the missing baggage. Any way, in our view, the description of the items containing in the missing baggage as given by the complainant in his complaint can not be 7 kg, certainly it would be more than this.

9.        To controvert the plea of the complainant, the O.P. Airlines has relied upon clause 9.3 of the Indigo Conditions of Carriage wherein it is stipulated that Indigo shall not accept any responsibility for any valuable and fragile items carried in checked-in baggage. The claim of the complainant has been specifically denied by the O.P. Airlines due to non declaration of such precious gold ornaments at the time of checking in contravention of the terms of carriage.
10.        On perusal of the E-mail dated 25.10.13 sent by the complainant's daughter to the O.P. Airlines it is seen that they were offered a sum of Rs.14,00/- @ Rs.200/- per kg as monetary compensation for the missing baggage weighing 7 kg. The said amount was offered in line with clause 16.4 of the 'Condition of Carriage'. But they did not accept the said monetary compensation. Surprising enough, the complainant in his complaint has totally suppressed the fact of offering the monetary compensation of Rs.14,00/- for the missing bag by the O.P. Airlines. The conduct of the complainant does not appear to be fair. It is well settled  that a consumer knocking at the door of the redressal agency under the Act for relief in a Consumer Dispute must do so with clean hands. The court of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court must come with clean hands. The complainant in his complaint did not give the description of the gold ornaments and its weight carried in the missing baggage. In this context, no relief can be granted on a vague statement made by him that the total value of the gold ornaments carried in the missing baggage was worth Rs.1 lakh. In our view, the complainant has failed to establish by adducing clear, cogent and consistent evidence that there were valuables like gold ornaments in the missing bag. In absence of such evidence, the O.P. Airlines can not be fastened with the liability to pay compensation in addition to the monetary compensation already offered by the O.P. Airlines.

11.        For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the complainant has failed to make out a case that the O.P. Airlines was guilty of negligence and deficient in rendering service.

12.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, we make no order as to the costs.           
  
13.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

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