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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1214

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SITAL KR. AGARWAL – Appellant
Versus
INDIAN AIRLINES & ANR. – Respondent
SC/7/A/37/2022



Petitioner Advocates:SHIV RAM SINGH ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

FA/37/2022 MR. SITAL KUMAR AGARWAL VS INDIAN AIRLINES D.O.D: 27.02.2026

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION

Date of Institution: 29.03.2022

Date of Hearing: 20.11.2025

Date of Decision: 27.02.2026

FIRST APPEAL NO. 37/2022

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. SITAL KUMAR AGARWAL

S/O SH. TILAK RAJ AGARWAL,

R/O. 56, ASHOKA APARTMENTS,

68, NAPEAN SEA ROAD, MUMBAI-400006.

(Through: Mr. Shiv Ram Singh,, Advocate)

…Appellant

VERSUS

1. INDIAN AIRLINES

SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT,

AUROBINDO MARG,

NEW DELHI-110003.

(Through: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate)

2. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,

RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN,

SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT,

NEW DELHI-110003.

(Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate)

…..Respondents

ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 9

##PAGE2##

FA/37/2022 MR. SITAL KUMAR AGARWAL VS INDIAN AIRLINES D.O.D: 27.02.2026

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present : Mr. Ashutosh Singh, proxy counsel for Mr. Shiv Ram Singh,

Counsel for the appellant (Mobile: 999067110) Mr. Shivkant

Arora, Counsel for the respondent No. 1 (Mobile:

9810294364) Mr. Digvijay Rai, Counsel for the Respondent

No. 2 appeared through VC

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,

PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The complainant has filed the present complaint requesting a

compensation of Rs.13,65,000/- for the losses that were suffered

in business extra expenditure on visits to Delhi to get back his

articles, harassment mental torture and agony.

The complainant has filed this complaint against OP No. 1 Indian

Airlines and OP No. 2 Airport Authority of India Ltd. The case of

the complainant’s that he had booked air ticket in Indian Airlines

and was allotted ticket number E-tkt No. 058-9770 2677 27 by its

flight number IC 806 from Mumbai to Delhi on the morning of

05.07.2010. It is the case of the complainant that he had booked

the flight so that he could attend the marriage ceremony of his

niece but when he reached the Delhi Airport by the said flight, he

found certain items missing from his pouch which included the

following:

i. Rs.20000/- cash

ii. A gold coin 5 gms bearing the marking of national refinery

private limited Mumbai

iii. A 100 U.S. dollar note

ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 9

##PAGE3##

FA/37/2022 MR. SITAL KUMAR AGARWAL VS INDIAN AIRLINES D.O.D: 27.02.2026

The complainant was carrying the cash and two similar gold coins

which were to be gifted to the new bride and bridegroom on the

occasion of their marriage. A complaint was lodged by the

complainant immediately with the OP No. 1. Another two

complaints were lodged by the son of the complainant on the

website of Indian Airlines vide reference number 201007 051

63314 and 201007051 63856. The copy of the FIR is also enclosed

alongwith the complaint at Page 10.

Through an article published in newspaper the Complainant came

to know on 06.07.2010 that two loaders at the Delhi airport have

been arrested by the CISF police. The complainant then met the

manager of the OP No. 2 and was directed to meet the duty officer

at Mumbai airport. The complainant informed his son at Mumbai

to meet the airport authorities on the same day i.e. 06.07.2010 who

directed him to contact OP No. 1 as the articles missing have been

recovered. It is further the case of the complainant that he had to

stay back in Delhi for quite some time ignoring his important

business at hand so that he could attend the court hearings to

recover his articles that he had lost. The articles were finally

handed over to the complainant on 24.12.2010 after many dates.

The certified copy of the order is annexed as ‘F-7’ at page 31 of

the complaint.

Claiming negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the

opposite parties since they could not take care of the belongings

of the complaint, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

The OP No. 2 i.e. Airport Authority of India Ltd. has taken a

preliminary objection that after the privatization of the airports,

the security at the airports is taken care of by CISF. They have

also st

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top