Compensation for Misplacing of luggage by Airport authority under consumer justice

 

Compensation for Misplacing of luggage by Airport authority under consumer justice

 

Sri Dibakar Bhattacharjee v. The Airport Director, Airport Authority

of India, Air India (Airport Office) and ors.

 

Facts: Sri Dibakar Bhattacharjee and Sri Sanjoy Pandit Complainants in this

case lost their luggage while on the journey to New Delhi by Air India Flight

on 13-08-2015. They handed over their entire luggage at the Luggage counter of the OP Airline at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Dum Dum. On reaching Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, they did not get back their luggage. As a result of such loss of luggage from the custody of the OPs, they could not discharge their professional duty before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for which they had to suffer huge financial loss.

It was contended that the Airport Director, Airport Authority of India does

not provide air transport service, but discharges statutory obligations as

provided under Airports Authority of India Act, 1995, hence OP-2 i.e Air

India (Airport Office) provides services for carrying passengers along with

their luggage to different destinations. Thus on notice, other OPs contested

the case. It is stated by these OPs that on receipt of complaint, messages

were sent to different stations for locating the luggage, but the same could

not be retrieved. Complainant No. 2 was contacted over phone by Air India,

Baggage cell to know the description of baggage including contents of

baggage, but he could not provide necessary information at that moment

and then, he was requested to send the required information through e-mail.

It is alleged by these OPs that after a long gap the Complainants sent message enquiring about the loss of luggage to Air India, Delhi Baggage Cell. These OPs state that they are willing and ready to pay compensation as per guidelines of the aviation sector. The Complainants claimed to have made several telephone calls to the said office of the OP Airline over phone on 13-08-2015. The OP Airline has not furnished any material proof to

substantiate its claim in the matter.

Issue: Whether there is deficiency in service by Air India & Ors?

Decision: After hearing both the parties and going through documents on

record, Commission observed that the fact remains undisputedly the luggage

of the Complainants got misplaced and insofar as the same was handled by

the men of OP airline, it cannot shrug off due responsibility in the matter.

Commission found that the Complainants Suffered considerable financial

loss to them and were subjected to severe stress and mental agony in arranging necessary dresses. Hence complaint was allowed by State Commission against Air India & Ors., and dismissed against the Airport Authority of India. Air India & Ors were jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to each of the Complainants within 40 days. In default, the aforesaid compensation amount (not the litigation sum) shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. for the entire period of default.

 

Col. D. K. Kapur v. KLM Northwest Airlines17

Facts: The principal allegations of Col. Kapur related to a long delay in the

departure and ultimate cancellation of the Airlines’ flight on which he was

booked for his journey Delhi - Amsterdam - Seattle on 24th July 2006; the

inconveniences that he underwent at the Hotel Grand, Vasant Kunj, New

Delhi where he and other passengers of this flight were put up by the Airlines till the departure of the Airlines’ next flight (inconveniences like the lights in the Hotel room not working and the Hotel not being prepared to offer him even a cup of tea unless he paid for it, the latter forcing him to go hungry and hence go home at his own cost); he was ultimately given a boarding pass for a journey Delhi -Amsterdam - Detroit - Seattle as against the original routing of Delhi -Amsterdam - Seattle; the flight Detroit - Seattle was a low grade, cheap domestic flight on which he was not served any refreshment as he should have been for an international journey for which he had paid; one of his checked-in pieces of baggage went missing at Detroit to search which he had to spend hours and as a result he could not catch the originally scheduled had to spend hours and as a result he could not catch the originally scheduled Detroit - Seattle flight; in his search of his missing baggage at Detroit, no staff of the Airlines helped him; and, finally, when he reached Seattle, his missing baggage could be located only after a three-hour long frantic search by his son, without the assistance of any Airlines staff, because it had been sent by a Detroit Seattle flight different from his.

Issue: Whether there was negligence by the airline company?

Decision: The National Commission held KLM airlines liable for deficiency

in service in respect of a missing baggage piece of the petitioner. The

Commission held that “the mental and physical harassment that a passenger, a senior citizen at that, would undergo when he is required, after so many hours of an international air journey, to collect his checked-in baggage at the point of first disembarkation from such a flight in order to board a connecting domestic leg of the routing to the final destination and finds one of the checked-in baggage pieces missing, with no one from the international or the partner air carrier available to lift the proverbial little finger to help him, would certainly amount to “injury” within the meaning of the term under section 14 (1)(d) of the [Consumer Protection] Act, entitling him to compensation.” The judgment is greatly appreciated as in the present times, there has been a surge of airline companies, however, there has not been an equal surge in the effective liability regime to hold airlines accountable. Very often, consumers are rendered helpless against gross deficiency and negligence of airline companies despite paying a huge amount for the same.