Order by:
Smt.Aparana Kundi, Member.
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that he visited from Moga to Udhaypur via Chandigarh for some official work on separate Airline i.e. Indigo Airlines. Thereafter on 10.03.2022 the complainant had booked flight from Jodhpur to Chandigarh via Mumbai from Opposite Party No.1 and the ticket was booked and after reaching Mumbai due to the late flight from Jodhpur to Mumbai, the crew members of Opposite Party No.1 at Mumbai Airport in a hurriedly and have managed to board complainant to connected flight from Mumbai to Chandigarh in a flight No.UK651 and the arrival time was 6.30 PM at Chandigarh Airport. When the complainant reached at Chandigarh Airport then he surprised that his luggage was missing in which he has a important documents and new dresses to attend the family function at his native place. Thereafter, the complainant enquired about the same from the staff of Opposite Party No.1 and they informed that at Mumbai Airport, the staff of Opposite Party No.1 forget to keep the luggage of complainant in the flight and assured that the luggage will be received after 3 hours in the next flight. In this regard, the complainant has already booked a taxi from Chandigarh to Moga, but due to missing of the luggage and due to the waiting of luggage, said taxi driver took double fare from the complainant and as such, the complainant waited upto10.30 PM at Airport on 10.03.2022 without his luggage and also missed his family function which he has to attend at his native place. Thereafter, at 10 PM on 10.03.2022 when the complainant again enquired the same, then the representative of Opposite Parties told that the luggage is not kept in the flight and it could be delivered by tomorrow and as such, the complainant under depression reached at his home empty hand without his luggage. At last on so many representations and telephonic calls to the representatives of the Opposite Parties, the complainant received the luggage at about 6.40 PM on 11.03.2022 which was damaged badly and newly purchased dresses of the complainant were also damaged due to which the complainant was mentally depressed from the service given by Opposite Party No.1. Not only this, due to this reason, the complainant could not attend the family functions. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties and also served legal notice to make good the loss caused by him due to deficiency, negligence and unfair trade practice, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To direct the Opposite Parties jointly or severally to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs on account of compensation for mental tension, harassment, deficiency in service and agony at the hands of the Opposite Parties and also to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses or other relief which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence this complaint has been filed by the Complainant for the redressal of his grievances.
2. Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service, hence Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte by this District Commission vide detailed order dated 10.10.2022. However, at the stage of arguments, Sh.Ajay Pal Singh Bhullar, Advocate filed an application for setting aside the exparte order on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Reply to the application of the applicants/ Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 filed by the complainant. But however, as per Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga has no power to review any of the order passed by it, except if there is an error apparent on the face on the record. Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as under:-
“40” Review by District Commission in certain cases:
The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.”
Further, as per the principal of law already laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case: Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Another, Civil Appeal No. 4307 of 2007 wherein, it was held that “….The District Forum and the State Commission have not been given any power to set aside exparte orders and power to review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the statue can not be exercised…..”
Perusal of the record shows that there is no apparent error in the order and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte on passing detailed order by this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of e-mail correspondence made by the complainant with Opposite Parties Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, copy of property irregularity report regarding missing/ damaged/ pilfered article Ex.C5, copy of ticket Ex.C6, copy of baggage delivery order Ex.C7, copy of legal notice Ex.C8, copy of postal receipts Ex.C9 and Ex.C10, copy of aadhar card Ex.C11 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the Complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
5. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, the case of the complainant as is evident from the record that on 10.03.2022 the complainant had booked flight from Jodhpur to Chandigarh via Mumbai from Opposite Party No.1 and the ticket was booked and after reaching Mumbai due to the late flight from Jodhpur to Mumbai, the crew members of Opposite Party No.1 at Mumbai Airport in a hurriedly and have managed to board complainant to connected flight from Mumbai to Chandigarh in a flight No.UK651 and the arrival time was 6.30 PM at Chandigarh Airport. When the complainant reached at Chandigarh Airport then he surprised that his luggage was missing in which he has a important documents and new dresses to attend the family function at his native place. Thereafter, the complainant enquired about the same from the staff of Opposite Party No.1 and they informed that at Mumbai Airport, the staff of Opposite Party No.1 forget to keep the luggage of complainant in the flight and assured that the luggage will be received after 3 hours in the next flight. In this regard, the complainant has already booked a taxi from Chandigarh to Moga, but due to missing of the luggage and due to the waiting of luggage, said taxi driver took double fare from the complainant and as such, the complainant waited upto10.30 PM at Airport on 10.03.2022 without his luggage and also missed his family function which he has to attend at his native place. Thereafter, at 10 PM on 10.03.2022 when the complainant again enquired the same, then the representative of Opposite Parties told that the luggage is not kept in the flight and it could be delivered by tomorrow and as such, the complainant under depression reached at his home empty hand without his luggage. At last on so many representations and telephonic calls to the representatives of the Opposite Parties, the complainant received the luggage at about 6.40 PM on 11.03.2022 which was damaged badly and newly purchased dresses of the complainant were also damaged due to which the complainant was mentally depressed from the service given by Opposite Party No.1. Not only this, due to this reason, the complainant could not attend the family functions. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties and also served legal notice to make good the loss caused by him due to deficiency, negligence and unfair trade practice, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. To prove the aforesaid contention, ld.counsel for the complainant has placed on record the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1, alongwith copies of e-mail correspondence made by the complainant with Opposite Parties Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, copy of property irregularity report regarding missing/ damaged/ pilfered article Ex.C5, copy of ticket Ex.C6, copy of baggage delivery order Ex.C7, copy of legal notice Ex.C8, copy of postal receipts Ex.C9 and Ex.C10, copy of aadhar card Ex.C11. The aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record as the Opposite Parties did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to offer or defend the complaint.
6. So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the Opposite Parties have adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by not giving the proper service to the complainant with regard to his luggage. On this count, the Complainant prayed for Rs.2 lakhs on account of compensation for mental tension, harassment, deficiency in service and agony at the hands of the Opposite Parties and also to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses or other relief which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakh appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against both the Opposite Parties jointly or severally and both the Opposite Parties are jointly or severally directed to pay lump sump compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands Only) to the complainant on account of compensation for mental tension, harassment, deficiency in service and agony at the hands of the Opposite Parties alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.08.2022 till its actual realization. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 29.11.2022.
