Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member and Anup K Thakur, Member
Interglobe Aviation Ltd. and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Dr. Babul Roy and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3152 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 27/06/2017 in Appeal No. 25/2017 of the State Commission Tripura)
Decided on 8.1.2018
For the Petitioners:Mr Ajit Warrier, Advocate with Mr Anish Gupta and Mr Vaibhav Aggarwal, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Sufficient cause with regard to condonation of delay in each case is a question of fact.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Airlines—Deficiency in service—Loss of luggage—District Forum after considering documents produced by complainants namely, PIR, Air ticket, list of articles, feedback comments of service, email copies as well as evidence of parties passed impugned judgment directing opposite parties to pay amount of Rs.59,200/- (Rs.4,200/- as compensation as per their Rule and in addition to that Rs.50,000/- towards cost of dresses lost with baggage for deficiency of service and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost—State Commission dismissing appeal on limitation—Even after appeal was dismissed by State Commission, petitioners were not vigilant enough to file the revision petition in time—They have taken same excuse of transmission of orders and documents to justify their delay—In view of the discussion above, we find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order of the State Commission which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed both on merit and on limitation (Paras 6, 13 and 20)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27th May 2017 of the Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 25 of 2017.
2. The facts of the case as per the respondent / complainant are that the respondent no.1, Dr. Babul Roy and his wife, respondent no.2 purchased two air tickets from the petitioners/ opposite parties, IndiGo for travelling from Agartala to Delhi on 28.03.2016 for their journey to Srinagar. They had confirmed air tickets by Go Air flight for travelling from Delhi to Srinagar on 29.03.2016. The respondents carried all necessities for their entire journey period with them. Two pieces of luggage were handed over which were booked with the petitioner no.2 at Agartala airport. When they reached in Delhi, they found one of the luggage piece was missing and in the said luggage the respondent had goods worth Rs.90,540/-.
3. Accordingly, a complaint was made to the IndiGo Authority in the Customer Care Desk, but the missing luggage was not returned. On 29.03.2016 at 06.00 p.m., respondent no.1 sent one SMS to the Customer Care of IndiGo stating as follows:-
“Service provided by Indigo Authority is very poor because I flew on 28.03.2016 Flight No.6E 672 from Agartala to Delhi handed over my luggage at Agartala but at Delhi I could not find my luggage at Belt No.3 and instantly I informed & lodged complaint to Customer Care Desk. But it is a matter of regret that after lapse of 27 hours I did not get my luggage…….. Babul Roy”.
However, there was no response from the petitioner/ Aviation Company till 16.04.2016. Again, another e-mail was sent to the Aviation Company, but no satisfactory response was received from the petitioner/ Aviation Company. Being aggrieved by the action of the petitioner/ Aviation Company, the respondents filed an application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala to pay compensation of Rs.90,540/- on account of loss of goods and Rs.4,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, sufferings, inconvenience and discomfort during the travelling period.
4. The petitioner/ Aviation Company appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the respondents. It was stated that information of loss of baggage was given in time. Rs.4,200/- was offered for loss of baggage. As per terms and conditions, respondents were not entitled to get any more. Thus, the complaint petition was liable to be dismissed.
5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala, vide its order dated 06.12.2016 while allowing the complaint held as under:
“The District Forum after considering the documents produced by the complainants namely, PIR, Air ticket, list of articles, feedback comments of service, email copies as well as the evidence of the parties passed the impugned judgment directing the opposite parties IndiGo to pay an amount of Rs.59,200/- (Rs.4,200/- as compensation as per their Rule and in addition to that Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the dresses lost with the baggage for deficiency of service and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation)”.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioners/ opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 27.06.2017 while dismissing the appeal on limitation observed as under:
“12. We have gone through the condonation petition wherein it is specifically stated that the opposite parties received the impugned judgment in time and the same was also communicated to the corporate office situated at Gurgaon, Haryana in time. Nowhere in the petition stated when the corporate office after receipt of the impugned judgment directed their Counsel to prepare the appeal and when the appeal was prepared and sent to corporate office for approval except the ground that the appellants were in t
