Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunil Kumar Garg, President and G.S. Hora, Member
AIR DECAN (DECAN AVIATION LTD.) AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
JYOTI SWAROOP SHARMA AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 422 of 2008
Decided on : 30-01-2009
Mr. Anudyuti Maitra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. D.M. Mathur, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deficiency in service by the airline, leading to inconvenience and mental agony for the passengers, justifies the award of compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Airline Passenger Rights - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21, Section 14(1)(d)] - The court discussed the deficiency in service on the part of the airline for not delivering the luggage on time, leading to mental agony and inconvenience for the passengers. The compensation awarded for mental agony and costs was upheld based on the inconvenience and hardship caused to the passengers.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant-respondents purchased a confirmed ticket for a flight journey, during which their luggage was not delivered on time, causing inconvenience and mental agony. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded compensation for mental agony and costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the airline for not delivering the luggage on time, causing inconvenience and mental agony to the passengers.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deficiency in service by the airline in not delivering the luggage on time justified the award of compensation for mental agony and costs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deficiency in service by the airline in not delivering the luggage on time amounted to inconvenience, hardship, and mental agony for the passengers, justifying the award of compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the airline was dismissed, upholding the District Forum's decision to award compensation for mental agony and costs to the passengers.
ORDER
Sunil Kumar Garg, President - This appeal has been filed by the appellants Air Decan which were Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 before the District Forum against order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur II in Complaint No. 369/2007 by which the complaint of the complainants respondents was allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as amount of costs and complaint against respondent No. 3 which was opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum was rejected.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant-respondents had filed a complaint against the appellants as well as respondent No. 3 before the District Forum, Jaipur II on 7.4.2007 inter alia stating that on 18.11.2006 they had purchased a ticket for travelling in the appellant's flight for his journey from Jaipur to Bangalore and from Bangalore to Madurai and the journey from Bangalore to Madurai was to take place on 3.12.2006. It was further stated in the complaint that the tickets for the above journey were confirmed tickets and they were marked as Anx. 1. It was further stated in the complaint that as per schedule the journey from Jaipur to Bangalore was completed and from Bangalore to Madurai the journey was to take place on 3.12.2006 and when the journey was started from Bangalore to Madurai, three bags were booked with the concerned authorities of the appellants and tokens for the luggage were issued by the appellants. It was further stated in the complaint that when on 3.12.2006 in the evening the complainant-respondents had reached at Madurai from Bangalore and when they searched out their three bags which were being carried by them from Bangalore to Madurai, they were not found at the airport of Madurai and on being inquiry it was found that these three bags were missing and search was being made to find out them and ultimately these three bags were handed over to the complainant-respondents on 4.12.2006. It was further stated in the complaint that on 4.12.2006 the complainant-respondent No. 1 Jyoti Swaroop Sharma had given a letter to the authorities of Air Decan at Madurai indicating that the loss in question of the items was to the tune of Rs. 69,000 through Annexure 10 and the same was confirmed by the employees of the appellants. It was further stated in the complaint that since in absence of three bags which were necessary and since in them goods of daily use i.e. clothes, money, jewellery, etc. were kept and since the complainants respondents were at a place Madurai which was not belonging to them, therefore, they could not proceed further to Rameshwaram and for that deficiency on the part of the appellants the present complaint was filed claiming Rs. 1 lac as compensation for mental agony, etc.
A reply was filed by the appellants on 23.8.2007 inter alia stating that no doubt there was delay in delivering the three bags but it was not revealed by the complainant-respondents that what was kept in that bags and further as per terms of the service, delivery of bags in time was not there and, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the apellants could be attributed. Hence, it was prayed that complaint be dismissed.
After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Jaipur II, through impugned order dated 31.12.2007 had allowed the complaint of the complainant-respondents inter alia holding
(i) That the complainant-respondents had reached from Bangalore to Madurai on 3.12.2006 through the flight of the appellants and at the Bangalore Airport three bags were booked by them.
(ii) That when the complainant-respondents had reached at Madurai on 3.12.2006, the said three bags were not delivered to the complainant-respondents by the employees of the appellants.
(iii) That since the bags of the complainant-respondents should have been delivered to them on 3.12.2006 as soon as the plane had arrived at Madurai and since they were deliv
