Lufthansa Airlines Is Liable To Pay Compensation More Than Amount Under Montreal Convention 2006 : Delhi State Consumer Commission
The DSCDRC (Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) comprising bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) Ms. Pinki, Member (Judicial) and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (General) has upheld the findings of the District Forum to compensate for the loss and mental harassment caused due to mishandling of baggage of the passenger by Lufthansa Airlines. The commission held that...
The DSCDRC (Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) comprising bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) Ms. Pinki, Member (Judicial) and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (General) has upheld the findings of the District Forum to compensate for the loss and mental harassment caused due to mishandling of baggage of the passenger by Lufthansa Airlines.
The commission held that the airlines are custodian of the goods, and it cannot be absolved from its responsibility towards it in any manner.
The passenger lost seven bags while traveling from Frankfurt to London through Lufthansa airlines. Later, it was sent to him after several days in ransacked condition and found all the valuables missing. A consumer complaint was filed in the District Consumer Commission stating that inadequate compensation was made by the airlines for loss, anxiety and mental agony suffered by the passenger. The District consumer commission after considering the material on record held that the staff of airlines were negligent in providing services and cannot be absolved by just claiming limited liability. It was ordered to to pay compensation for loss of goods stolen by paying USD 5,000/- and Rs.1.5 lakh for harassment and litigation expenses etc.
The order of District Commission was challenged by the airlines before the appellate authority, the Delhi State Commission (DSCDRC) on the ground that order for payment of USD 5,000 was unfair and argued that the Airline Company has already sent two cheques, each of Rs.61,875, to the Respondent passenger under the Montreal Convention 2006 as a goodwill gesture. Based on that, the company appealed for setting aside the order of the District Forum.
The passenger submitted that there was no error in the findings of the forum.
After hearing both the sides and considering material on record the State Commission (DSCDRC) upheld the findings of the District Forum and held that the Airline is entrusted to keep safe custody and delivery of the passenger’s luggage. However, in the present case it failed to perform its duties towards the passenger. The airline is not discharged of its liability by paying two cheques of Rs.61,875 to the aggrieved passenger. It is obligated to keep the passenger's belongings safely while traveling where they are not allowed to keep their belongings with themselves. The negligence and insensitivity shown by airlines staff towards the passenger cannot be condoned in any manner.
Case title- M/S. Lufthansa German Airlines v. Mr. Rajeev Vaderah