State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Etihad Airways vs Shaveta Vohra on 18 September, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.374 of 2023
Date of institution : 11.05.2023
Date of Reserve : 03.09.2024
Date of Decision : 18.09.2024
Etihad Airways, O-3, Level 4, Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International
Airport, New Delhi-110037.
.......Appellant/Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Shaveta Vohra daughter of Sh.Vijay Vohra.
2. Vijay Vohra son of Sh.Ram Lal Vohra.
3. Renu Vohra wife of Sh.Vijay Vohra.
All residents of 1761, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana, 141
002.
........Respondents No.1-3/Complainants.
4. Sagger World Holidays, Model Town Road, opposite White House,
Ludhiana, Punjab.
.....Respondent No.4/Opposite Party No.1
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
against the Order dated 23.08.2022
passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission
Ropar Camp Court at Ludhiana in
RBT/CC No.274 of 2018.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present :-
For the appellant : Sh.S.S.Sharma, Advocate For respondents No.1-3 : Sh.Bhupinder K.Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Shaveta Vohra, in person For respondent No.4 : None F.A.No.374 of 2023 2 SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short 'The Act') being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ropar Camp Court at Ludhiana (in short 'the District Commission') whereby the Complaint of the Complainant had been allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant before the District Commission are that the Complainants had booked their return tickets for a visit to New Delhi-New York- Buffalo by Etihad Airways on 18.08.2017. As per the booking schedule they had a stopover in Abu Dhabi. Their return journey was scheduled on 30.08.2017. They had purchased air tickets from OP No.1 agent. Said agent had booked the air tickets through OPs No.2-4 i.e. Etihad Airways for said journey. The air tickets from New York to Buffalo sector were booked through Jetblue Airways. An amount of Rs.1,42,000/- by way of cheques and Rs.1,53,482/- in cash was paid to the OP No.1 by the Complainants. According to the schedule, the Complainants got their hotel accommodation pre-booked for stay in hotel at New York and Buffalo. They had to reach at Buffalo on 18.08.2017. After staying for three days at Buffalo, the Complainants had to depart from Buffalo to New York on 21.08.2017. As per the scheduled trip, the Complainants after staying for seven days at New F.A.No.374 of 2023 3 York had to return at New Delhi via Abu Dhabi. Unfortunately, due to some reason, the flight for Buffalo was cancelled by Jetblue Airways and the Complainants could not travel to Buffalo on the scheduled date i.e. 18.07.2017. The fights were cancelled by Jetblue Airways so there was no fault on the part of the Complainants, OPs were duty bound to provide accommodation to them. However, neither Etihad Airways nor JetBlue Airways had provided any accommodation nor any meal to them.
4. Due to the cancellation of flight from New York to Buffalo, the Complainants had to wait at New York till 2 am. They had to make urgent arrangement for their accommodation on their own at New York on 18.08.2017. They already had a pre-booking at Hudson Hotel in New York for 21.08.2017 onwards. As such they approached the same hotel for accommodation. The staff of the Hudson Hotel had charged extra amount for their pre-arrival on 18.08.2017 at the Hotel. The Complainants had lodged Complaint to Jetblue Airways as well as Etihad Airways for refund of their two way air fare i.e. from New York to Buffalo and Buffalo to New York. Besides, non-provision of accommodation the OPs had also lost the luggage of the Complainants. Accordingly, the Complainant No.1 had lodged a Complaint to the OPs for loss of their luggage. In such circumstances, the Complainants were constrained to purchase new clothing and other materials. It was further alleged that on 20.08.2017, after more than 48 hours the OPs had handed over the lost luggage to the Complainants which was in a damaged condition. Once again the Complainants had lodged a Complaint regarding damaged luggage. F.A.No.374 of 2023 4 The OPs paid a meager amount as compensation to the Complainants. Due to cancellation of flight, the Complainants could not travel to Buffalo. Consequently, as they had to incur an extra expenses of 724.56 Dollars for their unscheduled stay in New York. In addition to the said expense they had to spend 600 Dollars for their clothing etc. and 600 dollars for their food. The Complainants had lodged a complaint for refund. Thereafter, JetBlue Airways had sent an email in this regard on 31.08.2017 to the OPs wherein they had duly acknowledged that the flight was cancelled. Since, the Complainants were not accommodated, they had got the approval for refund of unused sector and waiver code. In spite of that the OPs had not made refund to the Complainants. It was further alleged that the OPs had been exchanging emails with JetBlue Airways and had lingered over the matter. Furthermore, the OPs in order to harass the Complainants had denied the refund vide their email dated 24.11.2017. They kept on waiting for the response of the OPs. When they did not receive any response from them, the Complainants had approached the OP No.1- Sagger World Holidays, to know about the status of their refund. Only then it came to their knowledge that the said refund had been denied. The Complainants had again sent an email to the OPs on 10.04.2018 and again requested for the refund of the amount. On 17.04.2018, the OP No.3 had sent an email to the Complainant No.1 that they had already been refunded three tickets. However, the Complainants had not received any refund. The Complainant No.1 had again approached OP No.1 on 18.04.2018 to know about the status of the refunded amount, but the OP No.1 had informed her that they had not received any such amount. OPs No.2 to 4 had sent an email on 19.04.2018 to F.A.No.374 of 2023 5 the Complainant No.1 that Rs.4440/- per guest had been refunded and she was told to contact OP No.1. Complainant No.1 again sent an email to the OPs on 20.04.2018 and claimed the refund of two way fares, as the amount refunded by the OPs was less than the actual amount paid to the OPs i.e. Rs.98,494/- per person. Again an email was sent on 23.04.2018 to the OPs by the Complainant. They had demanded the breakup of the tickets, but the OPs had intentionally not provided any break up. Due to fault on the part of OPs, the Complainants had to bear additional expenses of their stay at New York from 18.08.2017 to 21.08.2017. This act of OPs was a case of negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Due to the negligence on the part of OPs the Complainants could not enjoy their trip and had suffered harassment, inconvenience and monetary loss. Hence, the Complaint was filed by the Complainants wherein they sought the following reliefs against the OPs.:-
1. To refund the ½ amount of air tickets from New York to Buffalo and Buffalo to New York i.e. Rs.49,247/- per person i.e. total Rs.1,47,741/-.
2. To refund the payment of Rs.1,28,630/- i.e. 1924.56 US dollars X Rs.66.84/- i.e. todays price of US Dollars for spending the amount during their stay at new York due to above said act of the Ops.
3. To refund the amount of 1000 US Dollars i.e. 200 dollar each luggage, for causing delay in delivery of luggage.
4. To pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience, harassment, mental agony and negligence of the OPs.
5. To pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of complaint.F.A.No.374 of 2023
6
5. Notice of the Complaint was issued to OP No.1, it was proceeded ex-parte by the District Commission vide order dated 07.08.2018.
6. Upon issuance of notice, OPs No.2-4 had filed their written reply by raising certain preliminary objections that the District Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. There was no cause of action to file the Complaint. On merits, it was stated that neither the OPs No.2 to 4 reside in Ludhiana nor do they have any office situated at Ludhiana. Moreover no cause of action had arisen at Ludhiana. The jurisdiction against an airline was required to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The jurisdiction in case of carriage by air is governed by Rule 33 of Schedule III of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Hence, an action could be initiated only at either the place of destination or where the Carrier is domiciled or has its principal place of business or where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract has been made. In the present case the action could have been initiated in New Delhi or New York as Eithad Airways/OPs No.2 to 4 did not have any office at Ludhiana. Besides, the destination of the Complainants was not Ludhiana and no alleged contract of travel was made there. Moreover, in the present case, it cannot even be said the any part of cause of action had arisen at Ludhiana. Ludhiana was not even on the itinerary of the complainants, who flew from New Delhi to New York via Abu Dhabi and returned to New Delhi Via Abu Dhabi. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs. They had prayed for dismissal the Complaint with cost. F.A.No.374 of 2023 7
7. By considering the averments made in the Complaint as well as in the reply thereof, the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed vide order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the District Commission. The relevant part of said order is reproduced as under:-
"10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-
1. To refund the amount of Rs. 2,95,482/- air tickets charges from New York to Buffalo and Buffalo to New York to the complainants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of cancellation of the flight.
2. To refund the payment of Rs.1,28,630/- i.e. 1924.56 US Dollars X Rs.66.84 i.e. at the time of that incident (price of US Dollar), for spending the amount during their stay at New York.
3. To refund the amount of Rs.1000 dollars i.e. 200 dollar each luggage, for causing delay in delivery of luggage
4. To pay Rs.50, 000/- as compensation
5. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
The OPS are further directed to comply with the said order within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules.."
8. The Appellant/OP No.2 has filed the present Appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the District Commission by raising a number of arguments.
9. Mr.S.S.Sharma, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP No.2 has argued on the similar lines as per the written reply filed before the District Commission. Learned Counsel for the F.A.No.374 of 2023 8 Appellant has submitted that Respondents No.1-3/Complainants had only claimed a total Rs.1,47,741/- towards air fare from New York to Buffalo and Buffalo to New York, calculated @ INR 49,247 per person. However, the District Commission had awarded an amount of Rs.2,95,482/- in total which was more than what was prayed by the Complainants. In fact the said amount was paid by the OPs for the entire itinerary covering the sectors Delhi-Abu Dhabi-New York- Buffalo-New York-Abu Dhabi-Delhi. The ticket for the sectors New Delhi to Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi to New York, New York to Abu Dhabi and Abu Dhabi to New Delhi was duly utilized by the Respondents No.1-3/Complainants. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel that they had only sought a refund of the fare for the sectors from New York to Buffalo and Buffalo to New York, which had already been refunded. The District Commission had failed to consider that email dated 17.04.2018 written by the Appellant to the Complainant No.1 wherein, it was clearly stated that the three tickets bearing Nos.6075660626096, 6075660626098 and 60756608126600 had already been refunded for the unused sectors i.e. New York to Buffalo and Buffalo to New York.
10. The District Commission had also wrongly refunded Rs.1,28,630 being equivalent to USD 1924.56 @ INR 66.84 per dollar for the alleged amounts spent by Respondents No.1-3/Complainants during their stay at New York. No evidence by way of bill etc. had been tendered by Respondents No.1-3/Complainants. The District Commission had erroneously proceeded to award an amount of USD 1000 for delay in delivery of baggage computed at USD 200 per bag F.A.No.374 of 2023 9 without any basis whatsoever. The District Commission had failed to appreciate the fact that Respondents No.1-3/Complainants had already accepted compensation from JetBlue towards delay in delivery of their baggage. The Respondents No.1-3/Complainants had not disclosed as to how much amount had been received by them from JetBlue Airways on account of delay in delivery of their bags. The amount of USD 1000 awarded by the District Commission on account of delay in delivery of their bags amounted to undue enrichment as well as double enrichment of Respondents No.1-3/Complainant, who had already received the compensation for delay in delivery of their bags. (page No.81 i.e. affidavit of Shveta Vohra-Complainant No.1)
11. Learned Counsel has further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant as the flight from New York to Buffalo and Buffalo to New York was to be operated by Jetblue Airways and not by the Appellant which is clearly mentioned on the tickets. Moreover, the said flight was cancelled on account of bad weather as can be seen from Ex.R-2.
12. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the Complaint could not have been adjudicated upon without arraying Jetblue Airways as a party as the entire grievance of Respondents No.1-3 was related to the cancellation of flight by Jetblue Airways. Learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as "Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Vs. Ethelwad O.Mendes", in support of his arguments.
F.A.No.374 of 202310
13. Sh.Bhupinder K.Gupta, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1-3/Complainants has argued on the similar lines as the averments made in the Complaint filed before the District Commission. Learned Counsel has submitted that OPs were negligent in providing their service. Due to uncertain cancellation of flight by the OPs, from New York to Buffalo, the entire trip of the Complainants had been spoiled. Furthermore, after cancellation of said flight, further act and conduct of the OPs had caused harassment as well as monetary loss to the Complainants. The Respondents No.1-3/Complainants had to bear huge expenses on their unscheduled stay at New York. The OPs instead of accommodating the Complainants at that point of time, flatly refused to accommodate them. They had neither provided any shelter nor provided any meal to the Respondents No.1- 3/Complainants. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is well-reasoned and no interference is required.
14. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Respondents No.1-3. Sh.Hitesh Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of Respondent No.4 on 17.10.2023. Thereafter, none had appeared on behalf of Respondent No.4. We have also perused the order dated 23.08.2022 as well as all the relevant documents available on the file.
15. Facts relating to the filing of the Complaint by the Complainant before the District Commission, reply thereof, the oral arguments raised by learned counsel for the Appellant as well as Respondents No.1-3 and passing of impugned order dated 23.08.2022 F.A.No.374 of 2023 11 by the District Commission, thereafter filing of Appeal before this Commission by the Appellant/OP No.2 are not in dispute.
16. Admittedly, the Complainants had booked three return air tickets of Etihad Airlines/JetBlue Airways to visit New York/Baffalo, USA. The origin of the visit was from New Delhi. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- by way of cheques and Rs.1,53,482/- in cash to the OP No.1. When the Complainants landed in New York, their onward journey to Buffalo was cancelled by JetBlue Airways on which they were booked. The flight was cancelled by the said airline due to bad weather. Consequently, the Complainants had to book a hotel at New York for a period of three days i.e. from 18.08.2017 to 21.08.2017. Said booking was done from their own pocket. Originally, the Complainants had booked Hotel Hudson, New York at a later date i.e. 21.08.2017.
17. Now the issues for adjudication before us are as under:-
1. As to whether the preliminary objection raised by the Appellant with regard to jurisdiction to file the Complaint at Ludhiana is sustainable or not?
2. As to whether Appellant/Etihad Airlines is liable to refund of half of the amount of air tickets from New York to Buffalo and Buffalo to New York in event of cancellation of scheduled flight in the said sector due to bad weather?
3. As to whether the Appellant is liable to refund the expenses incurred by the Complainants due to pre-arrival at Hudson Hotel, New York which had already been booked by them for a later date i.e. 21.08.2017?F.A.No.374 of 2023
12
4. As to whether the Appellant is liable to refund USD 1000 @ 200 each luggage in causing delay in delivery of luggage?
18. To reach to the right conclusion, we have perused the following documents tendered by the Complainants as well as OPs No.2-4 before the District Commission.
a) E-tickets of the Complainants (Ex.C-1)
b) Statement of account of Shaveta Vohra and Associates (Ex.C-2)
c) Reimbursement-letter/form (Ex.C-3)
d) JetBlue Passenger Property Loss Claim form filed by Complainant No.1 on 28.08.2017 (Ex.C-4)
e) Delivery receipt of lost luggage (Ex.C-5)
f) JetBlue (Delayed Baggage Receipt Report) (Ex.C-6)
g) Email regarding verification of cancellation of flight and process of travel using code (Ex.C-7)
h) Emails of Etihad Airways (Ex.C-8 colly)
i) Letter to Etihad Airways sent by Complainant No.1 regarding non-issue of refund process for cancellation of flight after confirming the same by airlines. (Ex.C-9)
j) Bill of Hudson Hotel (Ex.C-10)
k) Tax Invoice-Sale Invoice (Ex.C-11)
l) Statement of account (Ex.C-12)
m) tickets (Ex.R-1)
n) PNR (Ex.R-2)
o) Detail of breakup of the amount charged for the various sectors and taxes of the tickets. (Ex.R-3) We have also gone through the impugned order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the District Commission. The preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction to file a complaint at the place of his or her residence is not correct/maintainable as per the Section 34 2(d) CP Act, 2019. The said provision is produced as under:- F.A.No.374 of 2023 13
34. Jurisdiction of District Commission.--
(1) XXXXXX.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) XXXXXX
(b) XXXXXX
(c) XXXXXX
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.
19. As far as the refund of half of the amount of air tickets from New York to Buffalo and Buffalot to New York in event of cancellation of scheduled flight in the said sector due to bad weather, we have perused the aforesaid documents/evidence. It has clearly been established from the said documents that the journey undertaken by the Complainants on Etihad Airways flight from New Delhi to New York was as scheduled and problem free. The main problem encountered by the Complainants was that they were unable to travel on their onward journey booked on JetBlue Airways from New York to Buffalo, USA, as their flight was cancelled due to bad weather. Both the airlines are different air carriers. No document has been produced by the Complainants whether these different airlines i.e. Etihad Airways and JetBlue Airways had any arrangement that the Appellant airline would undertake the responsibility of JetBlue Airways in case of any emergency situation. No doubt the Complainants had been issued singular return ticket for the two sectors i.e. New Delhi-Abu Dhabi-New York and New York-Buffalo. In the case in hand, the flight for second part of the journey (New York to Buffalo) was cancelled due to bad weather which was an act of God. Meaning thereby the flight was cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances and it was beyond the control of the carrier airline. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the Respondents F.A.No.374 of 2023 14 No.1-3/Complainants that the Appellant airline was responsible for refund of various expenses incurred by them due to the cancellation of flight is not correct and is hereby rejected. It has also been observed that the Complainants had been directly corresponding with the said airline i.e. JetBlue Airways. When they were not satisfied with the refund approved by the said airline they raised their grievance with the Appellant airline. But the airline (JetBlue Airways) which had cancelled the said flight due to rough weather has not been arrayed as party in the Complaint.
20. The Complainants have been unable to prove how the Appellant airline is liable to refund 50% of the amount incurred on the flight cancelled by JetBlue Airways only. The said flight was not cancelled by the Etihad Airways. The journey of the Complainants on the Appellant airline had concluded at JFK, Airport New York. The further journey (New York to Buffalo was to be undertaken on a separate airline)
21. To assess whether the Complainants had completed 50% of their journey at New York in order to be entitled to refund of 50% of amount incurred on air tickets, we have researched with respect to various distances travelled by the Complainants from google research engine. It has transpired the distance between New Delhi to New York is 7318 miles/11777 Kilometers. The flying time to Delhi to New York is approximately 15 hours 20 mins. Whereas, the distance between New York to Buffalo is approximately 301 mile/484 Kilometers/262 nautical miles (source google). It takes 01:04 mins to travel to the said destination from New York. Meaning thereby it comprised only 4.07 % F.A.No.374 of 2023 15 of the entire journey undertaken by Complainants whereas they had sought a relief of 50% of each ticket. This fact has been substantiated by the e-ticket issued by OP No.1 (Ex.C-1) wherein it has been mentioned that total journey from New Delhi-New York via Abu Dhabi was of 17:45 mins (3:40 + 14:05). Whereas the journey from New York to Buffalo was of show in the said exhibit C-1 as 01:42 mins. Therefore, the contention of the Counsel for the Appellant that prayer of the Complainants for refund of 50% amount of air tickets i.e. total Rs.1,47,741/- is baseless/ill founded, is correct.
22. The perusal of contents of the Complaint clearly shows that JetBlue Airways had already compensated the Complainants for the cancellation of flight from New York to Buffalo and Buffalo to New York @ 4440/- per person. This refund has been processed based on the breakup of amount incurred by the Complainants on each sector of the journey (Ex.R-3). In the said documents, it has been shown that the amount incurred on journey from JFK (New York) to Buffalo was INR 1336 and INR 3104 (return journey) per person respectively. The prayer of the Complainant that she had been refunded a very less amount is not justified as she had been refunded the actual amount incurred by her. Therefore, the Appellant is not liable to refund any amount for cancellation of the ticket to the Complainants.
23. The other grievance of the Complainant is that due to cancellation of flight, they had to book hotel accommodation for three days from 18.08.2017 to 21.08.2017 (Ex.C-10) and had to incur an expenditure of USD 724.56. It is an admitted fact that the Respondents No.1-3/Complainants were stranded in New York due to cancellation F.A.No.374 of 2023 16 of flight to and fro from New York to Buffalo and had to make an arrangement for their stay. It is beyond doubt that the flight was cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances which was beyond the control of the said airline i.e. JetBlue Airways. However, it has been observed that the amount spent on the fare of the journey had been refunded by the said airline (Ex.R-3), whereas with regard to refund of expenses incurred on accommodation by the said airline it did not pass any instructions/directions to the Appellant airline i.e. Etihad Airways. Accordingly, we have perused Ex.C-7, the contents of the said documents are reproduced below:-
-----------------
"2017 00.33 ...(Punjab); Etihad Airways-Cust. Affairs Department May Concern, Contacting JetBlue regarding your refund request. ....email as verification that flight BG102 18 August JFK BUF was cancelled by JetBlue. The customers accommodated, and we show the coupons for both JetBlue flights were unused. Please process a refund of travel using code V54563419AUG17. Refund is processed by the agency that booked it. If not, the refund would need to come from the ticketing........ Know if there is anything else we can assist with you."
The aforesaid contents clearly mentioned that "Customers Accommodated" and further it has also been mentioned "refund of travel". Both these expressions have been used in a different context i.e. one relates to accommodate and the other to travel. It is unclear whether the said airline had accommodated the stranded passengers or not and the word accommodated had been used in which context. Further we have perused Ex.C-9, which is a communication between the Complainant No.1 to Appellant- Etihad Airways wherein it has been alleged that they had not bothered to address grievance regarding refund, expenses, hotel bookings, mental F.A.No.374 of 2023 17 agony, harassment, loss of luggage due to cancellation of flight and the way airline had spoiled their tour. However, it is worthwhile to mention that Appellant airline had to execute the directions given by JetBlue airways as has been shown in Ex.C-7. In absence of any specific directions with respect to compensation for unscheduled stay at New York from JetBlue Airways-the other airline, the Appellant airline could not have refunded the amount so spent by the Complainants. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to observe that the Respondents No.1-3/Complainants had a choice to reach their destination at Buffalo through alternate means of transport like hiring a taxi. They could have done so as the distance between New York to Buffalo is very short. Meaning thereby the Respondents No.1- 3/Complainants themselves opted to stay in Hudson Hotel New York instead of reaching their destination at Buffalo. Therefore, it is unfair on the part of the Complainants to allege that their tour had been spoilt due to cancellation of flight which was done due unforeseen circumstances which were beyond the control of JetBlue Airways. Accordingly, in light of aforesaid we find no justification in the allegation levelled by the Respondents No.1-3/Complainants against the Appellant to refund the amount of USD 724.56 and the same is hereby rejected.
24. The other grievance of the Respondents No.1- 3/Complainants is that they had to suffer due to negligent act of JetBlue airways as they had lost their luggage. Due to the said loss of luggage they had to bear additional expenditure in purchase of clothes and other related material. No bills to this effect are available in the case F.A.No.374 of 2023 18 file as to whether they had purchased any clothing/other items for the said amount (USD 600 + USD 600). It has been admitted by the Complainants themselves in the Complaint that later their lost luggage was handed over to them but it was in damaged condition. The complainants had prayed for USD 1000 on account of delay in delivery of luggage. In this context we have perused Ex.C-3, C-4, C-5 and C-6, it has been found that Complainant No.1 had claimed an amount of USD 326.61 in the form of JetBlue Passenger Property Claim wherein under the caption of Certification and understanding Complainant No.1 had claimed the aforesaid amount and signed the said document on 18.08.2017. Therefore, the Complainants themselves have contradicted their prayer for refund of USD 1000 whereas they had claimed USD 326.61 from JetBlue airways. Furthermore, Ex.C- 5 shows that the Respondents No.1-3/Complainants had signed another document on 20.08.2017 wherein Complainant No.1 had declared "my baggage broken before receiving on 20.08.2017 at 12:50 pm". There is no document in the case file which shows that there was any theft/loss of any item in the said luggage due to late delivery. The Complainant No.1 herself has admitted in the affidavit (Ex.C-A page No.81) filed before the District Commission, that "The deponent and co-complainants also lodged a complaint in this regard, however, the respondents paid an amount of a very meager amount as compensation to them". There is no document in the case file as to how much compensation the Complainants received on account delayed/damaged delivery of lost luggage. In this light it is apparent that the Respondents No.1-3/Complainants themselves had admitted the fact that they had already been compensated for F.A.No.374 of 2023 19 their alleged loss of luggage. Moreover, the contention of the Complainants that during the period when they did not receive their bag they had incurred an expense of USD 600 for their clothing extra and USD 600 for their food and payments paid through master card and cash in hand, has not been substantiated by any bills. Therefore, the prayer of the Complainants regarding compensation for delay in delivery of lost luggage is hereby rejected.
25. After a thorough perusal of documents tendered by the Complainants, there is no document tendered by them which shows that whether the Complainants had purchased the travel insurance which should be a must whenever any consumer is traveling to distant shores. Assuming that they did not buy any such insurance, we deem it to observe that buying a travel insurance for an overseas visit is a duty to be performed for one's own welfare in order to cover various unforeseen risks which may be encountered during the traveling period. A travel insurance ensures that a passenger can get coverage for accidental/medical emergencies, baggage loss, passport loss, missed connecting flights, cancellation of hotel booking, airline booking etc. In the case in hand, had the Complainants purchased the travel insurance all the exigencies faced by them during the foreign travel could have been covered/refunded. The observation is not a part of the order and may be treated as only an advisory.
26. The District Commission passed an order without proper appreciation of documents/evidence tendered by the parties. They have awarded the compensation to the Complainants without any F.A.No.374 of 2023 20 basis. Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission needs to be set aside in the foresaid terms.
27. In light of aforesaid facts, reasons, observations, there was no fault on the part of the Appellant i.e. Etihad Airway for not compensating the Complainants for the alleged losses. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed and the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside.
28. The Appellant has deposited an amount Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the Appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
29. Since the main case has been disposed off, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly, disposed off.
30. The Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER September 18, 2024 (Rupinder 2)