State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indigo Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. & Anr. vs Vimal Tanwani on 7 April, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR(C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/14/447
Instituted on : 26.06.2014
1. Indigo, Inter Globe Aviation Limited,
Global Business Park,
Gurgaon, Haryana
2. Intigo Inter Globe Aviation Limited,
Mana Airport,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants.
Vs.
Vimal Tanwani, S/o Narayan Das Tanwani,
Aged 42 years,
R/o : Pandri,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Ankit Jain, for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for the respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 07/04/2015 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.05.2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.CC/12/264. By the impugned order, the complaint of the respondent (complainant) has been allowed and the District Forum has directed the appellants (OPs) to //2 // pay within a period of a month from the day of order to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the respondent (complainant) along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 31.07.2012 till realisation. The appellants (OPs) have further been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the respondent (complainant).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (complainant) had booked four tickets from Raipur to Hyderabad on 04.07.2012. The date of journey was 07.05.2012. The respondent (complainant) and his family members were going to Hyderabad for attending the family function at his Aunt's house and for this purpose, the respondent (complainant) had purchased bed-sheets, readymade cloths and one brand new beg. The respondent (complainant) has six bags in his entire luggage on commencement of his travel from Raipur. The stickers of entire luggage were attached on the ticket of the respondent's (complainant's) son Kunal Tanwani. When respondent (complainant) and his family members reached Hyderabad, he had received only five bags and his new bag was lost. The respondent (complainant) had lodged written report immediately and the certificate was issued to the respondent (complainant) on 07.05.2012 regarding short delivery. The respondent (complainant) sent email to the Head Office of the appellants (OPs), and when the claim of the respondent (complainant) was not settled, he filed consumer complaint //3 // before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The appellants (OPs) filed their joint written statement and denied the allegations made by the respondent (complainant) against them in the complaint and averred that the respondent (complainant) has filed the present complaint against Indigo, whereas there is no corporate entity by such name. Hence the complaint is bad for misjoinder/non- joinder and is liable to be dismissed as such. The Indigo Airlines is managed and operated by Inter Globe Aviation Ltd.., a company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001, therefore, the District Forum, Raipur has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint is not maintainable. The appellants (OPs) further averred that as per the "Conditions of Carriage"
of Indigo, all disputes are subject to jurisdiction of the courts of Delhi only, therefore, the District Forum, Raipur has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The contract is binding upon both the parties and according to the terms and conditions of the contract, the respondent (complainant) is only entitled to get Rs.200/- per kg with maximum amount of Rs.3,000/- only in respect of loss of baggage. The appellants (OPs) offered an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent (complainant) as per the contractually binding "Conditions of Carriage", but the respondent (complainant) refused to accept the amount. The respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get compensation to the tune //4 // of Rs.45,000/- from the appellants (OPs). There was no specific declaration, at the time of check-in, by the respondent (complainant) about the contents of the missing luggage. Copies of the alleged bills clearly lack credibility. The respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any amount except as per the contractually binding Conditions of Carriage and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint and directed the appellants (OPs) to pay compensation to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
5. The respondent (complainant) filed documents. Document A-1 is Property Irregularity Report (PIR), A-2 is receipt No.152 dated 02.05.2012, A-3 is receipt No.0101-0000575 dated 01.05.2012 issued by Wardrobe, A-4 is receipt No.0101-0000580 dated 02.05.2012 issued by Wardrobe, A-5 is Property Irregularity Report (PIR), A-6 is bill No.9583 dated 02.05.2012 issued by Bombay Textiles, Raipur, A-7 are tickets issued by IndiGo.
6. The appellants (OPs) have also filed documents. Document Annexure OP-12 is IndiGo Conditions of Carriage, email sent by Vishal Bhardwaj to Manjishtha, email sent by Manjishtha to Vishal, reservation record and copy of various communication through email.
//5 //
7. Shri Ankit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has filed written arguments in which it is mentioned that District Forum, Raipur has exceeded its territorial jurisdiction in view of specific clause 18 of the Terms and Conditions of Carriage. He further argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is erroneous and the District Forum has wrongly fastened liability on loss of baggage of the respondent on the appellants (OPs. The respondent (complainant) is only entitled to get Rs.200/- per kg and maximum Rs.3,000/- in respect of loss of baggage from the appellants (OPs). The appellants (OPs) are ready to pay the said amount to the respondent (complainant), but the respondent (complainant) is not willing to receive the said amount form the appellants (OPs). Learned District Form has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the respondent (complainant) which are highly exorbitant. The respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellants (OPs), therefore, the appeal of the appellants (OPs) be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. He placed reliance on judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163; Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chand Mal Baradia & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 704; Angile Insulation vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1995) 4 SCC 153; Hakam Singh vs. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd., 1971 (1) SCC 286; M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. N. Sachidanand, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463;
//6 // judgements of Hon'ble National Commission in Shiv Garg vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors. reported in II (2012) CPJ 559 (NC); judgment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in Adil Irshad Saiyed vs. Jet Lite India Ltd First Appeal No.A/12/250 decided on 14.08.2012.
8. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant() has supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and submitted that it does not call for any interference by this Commission. He placed reliance on judgement of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisison, New Delhi in Air India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Madan Mohan Lal Das, III (2014) CPJ 109 (Del.), judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Mr. Santosh Sethi & Ors. Vs. Jet Lite (I) Ltd. & Anr. 2014 (4) CPR 372 (NC) and Devraj Sharma & Anr. vs. KLM North West Airlines I (2014) CPJ 85 (NC).
9. We have heard arguments of both the counsel and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs thus :-
"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction -
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or, carries on business or has a branch //7 // office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
11. We have perused the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) before the District Forum.
12. The respondent (complainant) specifically pleaded in the complainant that air tickets were book in Raipur and journey was to be performed from Raipur to Hyderabad. It appears that the place of boarding through air journey was Raipur and the luggage was also booked at Raipur Air Port. The branch office of Indigo Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. is also situated at Mana Airport, Raipur (C.G.) It appears that the appellants (OPs) are carrying their business at Raipur and a part of cause of action accrued at Raipur, therefore, merely mentioning by appellants (OPs) in Conditions of Carriage all disputes are subject to jurisdiction of Court of Delhi only, it is not sufficient to ousted the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Raipur, therefore, we find that the District Forum, Raipur has jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter.
13. It is not disputed that the complainant booked 6 bags and he only received only 5 bags and one bag was lost. The appellants (OPs) sent a letter to the respondent (complainant) on 23.05.2012 in which it is mentioned that "we deeply regret the inconvenience caused to you due to loss //8 // of your baggage. We endeavour to deliver bags in good condition, at the arrivals of the destination station. Therefore, we have shared a strong feedback with the concerned airport terms and with manager security for further review and to ensure baggage delivery as per the standard practices to avoid such issues in future". Another letter dated 19.05.2012 was sent by the appellants (OPs) in which there is mention regarding the lost of bag of the respondent (complainant). It appears that the respondent (complainant) had not received the bag which was lost, from the appellants (OP). The appellants (OPs) submitted that according to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, the respondent (complainant) is only entitled to get compensation @ Rs.200/- per Kg. totalling Rs.2,000/-, as per clause 16.4 of the Terms and Conditions of Carriage. The above submission of the appellants (OPs) is not acceptable.
14. The respondent (complainant) specifically pleaded that the respondent (complainant) submitted bills and documents before the appellants (OPs) and the value of the lost articles was Rs.45,000/-. The respondent (complainant) filed bill of Chitra Sales Corporation regarding the purchase of VIP Coral, in which its value is mentioned as Rs.11,100/-, bill of Bombay Textiles regarding purchase of bed sheet, in which its total value is mentioned as Rs.24,580/-, bills issued by Wardrob for purchase of the shirt to the tune of Rs.3,794/- and Rs.3,398/- . The total value of the articles is Rs.42,872. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the respondent (complainant).
//9 //
15. The finding recorded by the learned District Forum is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission.
16. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants (OPs) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar)
President Member Member
/04/2015 /04/2015 /04/2015