Consumer’s Baggage Identification Tag Missing: Bihar State Commission Clears Jet Airways Of Lost Baggage Liability

Brief Facts:

Dhanpat Kumar Jain (“complainant”), was traveling from Delhi to Patna on 07.06.2007 via flight no. 9W727 operated by Jet Airways. Before checking in, he deposited his luggage, a trolley bag, at the counter. However, upon arrival at Patna Airport, his luggage was missing. The trolley bag contained important items such as house keys bunch, medicines, important documents, dress material, blank cheques, and business documents. The complainant contacted the ground staff at Patna Airport to report the missing luggage. They asked for his boarding pass, but it was not stamped with the dispatch batch number, which became an issue in verifying his claim. Despite waiting for the next flight, the luggage could not be traced. Subsequently, he lodged a written complaint, but even after four months, he had not been able to recover his luggage. Upon sending a legal notice, the complainant's advocate received a reply from Jet Airways stating that there was no proof or evidence of check-in luggage, as no luggage tag or check-in baggage record was found in the system. Based on this, Jet Airways refused to accept liability and denied any compensation for the alleged missing baggage. As a result, the complainant filed a consumer complaint case in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khagaria (“District Commission”), seeking compensation for the loss suffered, along with interest and the cost of litigation.

After examining the photocopy of the Property Irregularity Report (PIR) and other evidence on record, the District Commission held that Jet Airways had committed deficiency in service. Consequently, the District Commission ordered Jet Airways to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- for loss of items, Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the order, Jet Airways filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (“State Commission”), claiming that the District Commission failed to consider that the complainant was not carrying any luggage at the time of boarding flight from Delhi and never checked in any baggage at the counter, to begin with. Further, the District Commission failed to consider important regulations (Rule 22 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, amended in 2009, and a 2014 MCA notification) stating that the airline's liability is limited to Rs. 20,000/- for luggage loss, destruction, or delay when passengers haven't declared its value or paid a supplementary amount. The complainant didn't check in any baggage or declare its value, making him ineligible for compensation.

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish their allegations. Mere statements in the complaint cannot be considered as evidence of deficiency in service. To support a claim of deficiency in service, there should be material evidence available on record or provided by the complainant.

The State Commission further noted that airlines typically issue baggage identification tags during check-in, which are attached to the bags, and a part of the tag (called stub stick) is affixed to the boarding pass for identification upon arrival. In this case, the complainant's baggage identification tag was missing, indicating the possibility that the complainant either didn't carry any baggage or wasn't attentive during the check-in process. Jet Airways conducted an inquiry into the missing baggage, but the check-in baggage records in the system did not reflect any checked-in bag. The efforts made by Jet Airways to locate the bag in response to the complaint do not imply an acknowledgment of responsibility for the loss. Furthermore, the complainant failed to provide any evidence that he had checked in his bag at the counter. Despite Jet Airways' efforts to trace the bag, there was no record of the complainant depositing any bag at the counter.

The State Commission found that the complainant was unable to substantiate that he had carried any bag or checked it in during the check-in process. Resultantly, the State Commission set aside the District Commission's order as it appeared to be based on assumptions and lacked a proper assessment of the evidence presented. Consequently, the appeal filed by Jet Airways was allowed.

Case: Jet Airways (India) Ltd. vs Dhanpat Kumar Jain

Case No.: Appeal No. 126 of 2018

Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Pankaj Kumar Mahta

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Kaushal

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View