Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/831/2022

GAGANDEEP TONI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED AIRLINES - Opp.Party(s)

SUMIT BAJAJ

01 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/831/2022
Date of Institution	:	28/09/2022
Date of Decision	:	01/02/2024

 

1. Gagandeep Toni son of Sh.D.D.Toni,

2. Dipti Toni wife of Sh.Gagandeep Toni, Chamber No.138, Lawyers Chambers Complex, District Court, Sector 43, Chandigarh.

3. Aadish Partap Singh son of Sh. Gagandeep Toni,

4. Avantika daughter of Sh.Gagandeep Toni, through her natural guardian Sh.Gagandeep Toni, residents of House No.57, Sector 94, JLPL, Mohali.

...Complainants

Versus

 

1. United Airlines, 2nd floor, Tower-C, Cyber Greens DLF Phase-3, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122002 (Cyber City) through its Authorized person.
2. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Tower 8C DLF City Phase-2, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122008 (Cyber City) through its Authorized person.
3. Air Canada 111 Ansal Bhawan, 16, KG Marg, New Delhi, 11001, through its Authorized person.

...Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Sumit Bajaj, Advocate for Complainants.
	:	Sh.Jagtar Singh, Advocate for OP No.1.
	:	OP No.2 ex-parte.
	:	Sh.Yoginder Nagpal, Advocate for OP No.3.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant No.1 and 2 alongwith their children i.e., No.3 and 4, taking time out of their hectic and demanding profession had planned for a holiday in Canada and United States of America in the month of June 2022 and had booked the international air tickets with the OP No.1 (Annexure C-2). The complainants had planned the itinerary of their trip i.e., hotel bookings and other arrangements accordingly (Annexure C-3). At the 11th hour of the scheduled boarding of the flight at Delhi International Airport the OP No.1 informed the complainants that they had cancelled the scheduled flight and the complainant No.1 and 2 alongwith their children i.e., complainant No.3 and 4 were left in lurch by the OP No.1. After hours of uncertainty the OP No.1 arranged different flights with different route for the complainants with the OP No.2 i.e., KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (Annexure C-4). Accordingly, the complainants handed over their entire check-in baggage carrying the complete baggage including clothes, medicines and other indispensable necessities for the entire trip of the complainants to OP No.2 at New Delhi (Annexure C-5). The complainants reached Vancouver, Canada on 4th of June 2022. The agony and the harassment meted out to the complainants did not end here and the entire check-in baggage of the complainants handed over to the OPs at Delhi International Airport was found missing and was delivered to the complainants at Vancouver. The complainants inquired about their check-in baggage from the counter of the OP No.3 i.e., Air Canada and one acknowledgement receipt in shape of T-file was generated and handed over to the complainants and the OP No.3 also assured that the check-in baggage of the complainants shall be restored to them shortly (Annexure C-7). But the check-in baggage was only handed over to the complainants on 07.06.2022 (Annexure C-8). In order to receive their baggage, the complainants had to travel seven times to the Airport from their place stay which spoiled the entire trip and holiday mindset of the complainants. The complainants underwent the harassment and mental ordeal of the highest order by being forced to visit the airport for the baggage seven times in three days spending huge amount of money on the taxi to and fro Vancouver airport (Annexure C-9). The complainants are entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of hotel bookings, medical exigencies, purchase of material necessities, taxi visits and other needs due to the loss of baggage purely due to the mistake of OPs. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the OP No.3, after their sincere efforts, retrieved the missing baggage of the Complainants and it was handed over to them on 07.06.2022. As a gesture of goodwill and with a view to compensate the complainants for the inconvenience caused, OP No.3, even offered 25% discount on future flights. It is further stated that the OP No.1 was never informed by the complainants about their missing check-in baggage claim or any other such grievance. Therefore, the OP No.1 was nowhere involved in the process of restoration of lost check-in baggage nor were they responsible for it as the complainants never traveled on the carrier operated by OP No.1. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.2 for seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 24.04.2023.
4.     OP No.3 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the baggage of the complainant was checked in by OP No.2 with original luggage tags at New Delhi itself. Air Canada was not handed over the luggage by the former carriers. Thus, OP No.3 cannot be held guilty for deficiency of service. It was only on the request of United Airline at Amsterdam that Air Canada flew the passenger to Vancouver via Toronto. Air India was not even handed over the baggage. United and KLM are in the best position to explain this aspect. As far as offer of promo code of 25% is concerned., it was offered by Air Canada out of gratitude and without admission of any liability. The PNR report clearly suggests that OP No.3 is not at fault. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.3.
5.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  
8.     Admittedly, the complainant reached his desired destination alongwith his family members on 4.6.2022 instead of 3.6.2022 as per his planned schedule. It is also an admitted fact that four bags containing all necessary items of complainant & his family members were received by him on 7.6.2022 instead of 4.6.2022. As per Annexure C-12, dated 23.06.2022 an email by Air Canada (OP-3), it is apolozing for its mistake. Contents of the aforesaid email are as under:-

         “Thank you for contacting us. We apologize for your recent baggage experience and the inconvenience that this disruption has caused. We appreciate your patience and understanding as we continue to do our best to remedy the situation as quickly as possible.

         This message confirms that we have received your claim. You can rest assured that an Air Canada representative will get back to you as soon as possible. In the meantime, kindly reply to this email if you wish to submit additional information. Receipts/photos must be submitted as attachments”. Despite such response no any action was taken by it which forced the complainants to indulge in the present litigation.

9.      Annexure C-9, dated 06.06.2022 is the taxi bill for $32.00. Annexure C-11, are various bills to buy necessary items by complainants to the tune of $44.80CAD, $20.15CAD, $132.05, $50.40, $123.17 respectively.  Annexure C-10 is the prescription by some doctor for the purpose of getting follow up due to anxiety which was result of mental and physical harassment caused by the negligent attitude of the OPs.

         It can be well understood that how a person and his family members must have felt, when the joy of their international planned tour became an utter horrible experience due to sudden unexpected changes in the schedule of flights as well as loss of baggage containing daily need items for four days.

10.     As per the averments made by OP No.1, it is an international Airline driven by a team of highly motivated and experienced professionals & has been providing its customer’s cost-effective airline service and is also the world’s largest airlines in terms of a number of destinations. As per admission of OP No.1 and documents on record the flight was rescheduled for 4.6.2022 with the OP No.2. Again, the scheduled flight from Amsterdam was cancelled and some alternative arrangements were made again with OP No.2. Finally when complainants travelled with OP No.3 to reach Toronto, their check in baggage was found to be missing which was received back after a delay of four days on the foreign land.
11.     OP No.1 has taken dual stand that it cannot be held liable as complaint never travelled on its carrier. On the other hand, it is stated that complainant never informed it about the loss of baggage. We are of the considered opinion, that it was responsibility of all the OPs to make sure the comfortable journey of the complainants as per their schedule and convenience. But the act of OPs for delaying the journey and loss of baggage proves deficiency in service & unfair trade practice even if the baggage was received back with a delay of 4 days. Due to negligent attitude of OP No.3, the complainant even could not consume his important medicines and so had to see a doctor therein foreign land as per Annexure
    C-10.
12.     Significantly, OP No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainants and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainants. Therefore, the assertions of the complainants go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
13.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. OP No.1 & OP No.2 shall pay Rs.35,000/- each as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainants.
2. OP No.3 shall pay $402.57CAD towards the various bills on record as per the applicable rate of CAD$ on the date of the expenditure.
3. OP No.3 to pay Rs.35,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
4. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

14.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i), (ii) & (iii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iv) above.
15.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
16.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
01/02/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]