A district consumer disputes redressal forum here has directed GoAir airlines to compensate a passenger by paying ₹50,000 after it was alleged that the complainant’s luggage was found in a “damaged” condition on arrival in the Capital.
Missing items
Holding the airline deficient in services, the consumer panel said, “The damaged baggage report mentioned that the bag lock has broken, inside belt was also broken and Kenneth watch and Scheffer Ink Pen was pilfered. There is nothing on record which is indicative of any inquiry conducted on the part of the [airline].”
Directing the airlines to compensate the passenger, the Bench added, “The [airlines] was the custodian of the checked-in baggage and pilferage of any item during such period can only be attributable to the airlines.”
Complainant Sanjay Kumar Chadha moved a complaint alleging that on reaching New Delhi from Mumbai his luggage was found to be damaged with some items missing.
“It is alleged that the main lock of the complainant’s suitcase was forcibly broken open and inside belt was also broken. It is further alleged that the respondent’s persistent omissions, wilful negligence and deficient service in replacing the damaged suitcase and remunerating the complainant with pilfered articles caused the complainant great distress and harassment for which the [airline] is liable,” read the complaint in the order.
However, the airline denied that the luggage “was forcibly broken open” and contended that the “damage to the suitcase may be caused inadvertently during regular operations”.
“The process of transferring baggage from airport to aircraft and from aircraft back to the airport is a time-bound and manual process. Further, such damages may also occur when the bags pile up and are stocked inside the aircraft for the journey. The terms and conditions prohibiting keeping valuable articles in the checked-in baggage had been isolated by the complainant,” the airline contended.
However, dismissing contentions put forth by GoAir, the consumer forum directed the airline to pay ₹30,000 to the complainant for the damage to his bag and missing items. An additional sum of ₹20,000 was directed to be paid as litigation cost and harassment to the complainant.
