Burden Of Proving Deficiency Lies With Claimant, Hyderabad District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Gulf Airlines

Brief Facts:

Ms Rashida Rampurawala (“Complainant”) purchased two economy-class tickets from Gulf Airlines for a total of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The Complainant boarded the flight on October 22, 2022, from Rajiv Gandhi Airport to Bahrain International Airport with two bags. Upon arrival, the Complainant discovered that one of her bags had a broken lock, and valuable items, including diamond gold earrings, a diamond ring, a silver ruby ring, a silver diamond Pandora ring, a smartwatch, a silver emerald ring, two pairs of silver earrings, and a silver necklace, worth approximately Rs. 2,00,000/-, were stolen. The Complainant approached the airlines at multiple instances but didn't receive a satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad, Telangana (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the airlines. The Complainant submitted that, as per airline rules, the service provider must compensate for missing items.

In response, the airlines denied the allegations, contending that the consumer complaint was not maintainable and should be dismissed. It argued that the Complainant did not declare the contents of the checked-in bag containing jewellery during airport check-in. It pointed to the conditions of carriage printed on the ticket and available on the carrier's website, stating that passengers are bound by these conditions. Specifically, Article 8.3 prohibited certain items in checked-in bags, and Article 15.4 disclaimed liability for damage to articles which were not permitted. Therefore, it argued for the dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that there is a settled law that the burden of proving deficiency in service lies with the party making the claim. In this regard, the District Commission noted that the Complainant failed to substantiate her claim by placing relevant evidence before it.

Citing the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International Limited, the District Commission reaffirmed that the Complainant must provide proof of deficiency in service. Further, it also referred to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Shiv Garg vs Lufthansa German Airlines and others, emphasizing that in the absence of the evidence presented by the Complainant, the airline is not liable to compensate for losses incurred due to the violation of terms and conditions.

Consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complaint against the airlines.

Case Title: Rashida Rampurawala vs The Authorized Signatory Gulf Air India

Case No.: Consumer Case No.125 of 2023

Advocate for the Complainant: Party in Person

Advocate for the Respondent: Ritu Singh Mann

Click Here To Read/Download Order