SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.D. Kapoor, President and Rumnita Mittal, Member
SUBODH C. GUPTA (DR.) AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEMS - Respondent
Complaint No. C-259 of 2001
Decided on : 04-08-2008

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Anjali Chopra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Deepti, Advocate, for the Respondent

The judgment establishes that the liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in addition to the limited liability under the Carriage by Air Act, and consumers can seek compensation for deficiency in service and emotional suffering due to the negligence of the airline.

Headnote:

Excess Baggage - Airline Passenger Rights - Carriage by Air Act, 1972, International Carriage of Goods Act, Warsaw Convention - The court discussed the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, and the Warsaw Convention, and their limitations on the liability of the carrier for loss, delay, or damage to baggage. The court also highlighted the additional liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony, and emotional suffering suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the airline.

Fact of the Case:

The complainants, U.S. citizens, purchased round trip tickets and faced issues with excess baggage, leading to the loss of essential items. They sought compensation for the inconvenience and stress suffered due to the airline's negligence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the airline's refusal to allow the retrieval of luggage already boarded and the demand for extra money amounted to deficiency in service, causing immense physical and mental harassment to the complainants.

Issues: The issues raised included whether the baggage cleared in Newark could be held as excess baggage in Copenhagen, the applicability of baggage rules throughout the journey, and the entitlement of the airline to charge extra baggage fees for a break-up journey.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in addition to the limited liability under the Carriage by Air Act, and awarded compensation for the deficiency in service and emotional suffering suffered by the consumer due to the airline's negligence.

Final Decision: The court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1 lac, including the cost of litigation, to the complainants, and directed the payment to be made within one month.

ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)- Complainants are U.S. citizens. They had purchased two round trip tickets from Delhi in the business class on May 15, 1999 bearing No. 117-6894467851-54 with flight sectors as Delhi-Copenhagen-Newark-Copenhagen-Nice-Copenhagen-Delhi. On this sector-2 checked in baggages are allowed with maximum weights of 64 kgs. On May 23, 2000 the complainant boarded the SAS flight at Newark at 18.15 hours and checked their luggage. At the time of receiving the baggage from the complainants no objection was raised by the OP and the baggage was cleared since it was found within the permissible limits. The baggage was received at Copenhagen Airport. Except for the bare minimum required by the complainants the rest of their luggage was deposited in the left luggage facility as the complainants were proceeding to Nice for few days. The complainants boarded the SAS flight from Copenhagen to Nice at 10.45 hrs on May 24th 2000. In Nice they did not check in their baggage. They retained it as hand baggage. From Nice Lyon-Nice the complainants travelled by Air France. Complainants were instructed by the officials of Air France at Lyon to check in their hand baggage, which would accordingly be off-load at Copenhagen. The SAS flight from Nice to Copenhagen was delayed, with the result that only about an hour was left for them to board the flight to Delhi. The complainants retrieved their luggage from the left-luggage counter at Copenhagen and sought to check it in on the Copenhagen-Delhi flight and also requested the SAS officials to off-load their hand baggage which had been checked in at Lyon since the same was intended to be carried as hand-baggage in the flight from Copenhagen to Delhi. The SAS officials refused to do so for some undisclosed reasons and instead asked the complainants to pay at least $3,000 in case they wanted their luggage to be checked in and loaded on the same flight on the plea that the facility of carrying 64 kgs. in two baggage pieces per person was not available while boarding the flight from Copenhagen. The complainants having boarded the flight from Newark were entitled to the same allowance of baggage and since they were travelling on the same ticket they could not be subjected to different baggage rules en route. The officials of the OP for some ulterior motives wanted the complainants not to board their flight till the controversy was settled and they tried to intimate the complainants by threatening to hand over to the police, the baggage of the complainants consisting of 3 suitcases and 1 carton, for incineration, if the complainants board the flight without their luggage or without paying the money demanded by them.

2. The complainant No. 1 was a frequent flyer (No. EBB075190-793) of SAS Airlines and was well versed with the rules and regulations applicable to him. The complainant No. 1 was a heart patient and the complainant No. 2 was suffering from Arthritis. The complainants had important and pressing engagements in India they could not afford to miss their flight to New Delhi from Copenhagen. As such, the complainants had no option but to board the flight without their baggage, (3 suitcases and one carton which contained their clothes, doctors prescribed food items medicines, laptop computer as well as gift items for friends and relatives in India and all their day-to-day belongings to be used by them during their long stay in India. Out of the four pieces of hand luggage, which were booked on the said flight, the complainant could retrieve only one. With respect to the checked in luggage lost in transit, the complainants have already lodged the claim with the OP. The complainants on arriving at Delhi immediately contacted their travelling agent M/s. Ashwa Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. who sought the relevant enquires with the office of the OP and confirmed and certified that the complainants were entitled to 2 number of baggage with maximum capacity of 32 kgs. each piece and this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top