Delhi State Commission Holds Etihad Airways Liable For Misplacing Check-In Baggage
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (Member) held 'Etihad Airways' liable for deficiency in service for misplacing a check-in baggage and returning it to the aggrieved passenger after several days. It was directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the physical and mental agony suffered, along with...
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (Member) held 'Etihad Airways' liable for deficiency in service for misplacing a check-in baggage and returning it to the aggrieved passenger after several days. It was directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the physical and mental agony suffered, along with Rs. 25,000 towards litigation costs.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased an Etihad Airways ticket to travel from Sweden to Delhi, with layovers in Berlin and Abu Dhabi. At the Berlin Airport transit lounge, her flight was upgraded to business class. Upon boarding, the Complainant's cabin bag was relocated to a different area due to a lack of space in the overhead compartment. Despite her protest, she was informed that she would only receive the bag after arriving in Delhi.
Upon reaching Delhi, the Complainant could not locate the air hostess who had moved her bag and was directed to the 'Immigration and Baggage Claim' counter. However, she was unable to find her bag at the baggage claim belt either. After further attempts to resolve the issue, the Complainant submitted a 'Lost Cabin Baggage' application and was given a carbon copy of the form. Several days later, she received her bag wrapped in plastic. The bag was returned after the carbon copy of the lost baggage application was taken back.
Upon unwrapping the bag, the Complainant discovered that her money, a gold chain and locket, a wristwatch, a Sony mobile phone, and new garments were missing. She contacted Etihad personnel and made several efforts to resolve the issue. However, Etihad failed to take appropriate action. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”).
Contentions of the Opposite Party (Etihad Airways):
Etihad contended that the complaint was barred under Rule 31 of Schedule III to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and claimed that the Complainant's allegations were based on fabricated facts. It highlighted that the Complainant approached Etihad instead of 'Air Berlin', whose crew allegedly moved her bag. Moreover, it argued that there is very little likelihood of a lack of space in business class. Therefore, the bag would have been checked in. Since it was a check-in baggage, the 'International Air Transport Association (IATA) General Conditions' apply, which exempts airlines from liability for lost valuables.
Observations of the Commission:
The State Commission reviewed the Property Irregularity Report (PIR) filed by the Complainant and observed that the report only listed clothes and dresses, with no mention of the valuables or foreign currency claimed by the Complainant in the complaint. This omission raised doubts about the credibility of the Complainant's allegations. The PIR also stated that the bag was last seen at Gothenburg, contrary to the Complainant's claim that the bag was taken by the crew in Berlin.
Additionally, the State Commission noted that the Complainant did not submit her affidavit as evidence. Instead, a third party filed it on her behalf, which was procedurally improper. Furthermore, the Complainant failed to declare the high-value items, including money and jewelry, at either Gothenburg or Delhi airports. In the absence of these declarations and supporting evidence, the State Commission found no merit in the claim of lost valuables.
However, the Commission acknowledged that the Complainant's bag, categorized as checked-in baggage, had been misplaced and returned after several days, causing inconvenience. This led the Commission to conclude that Etihad had provided deficient service. Consequently, the complaint was partly allowed, and Etihad was directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the physical and mental agony suffered, along with Rs. 25,000 towards litigation costs.
Case Title: Ms. Asha Devi vs M/s Etihad Airways
Case No.: 831/2016
Authorized Person for the Complainant: Ms Shikha Chibbar
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Ritu Singh and Mr Dheeraj K. Garg
Date of Decision: 17.09.2024