Missing Check-In Luggage, Ludhiana District Commission Directs Emirates Airline To Pay Rs. 25k Compensation And Bharti Axa Insurance Co. To Reimburse Claim

Brief Facts:

Mr S.K. Garg (“Complainant”) approached Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited (“Insurance Company”) to buy overseas travel insurance from May 6, 2018, to May 13, 2018. The purpose of this insurance was to cover potential losses such as emergency medical expenses, delays in baggage, loss of checked baggage, etc. During his trip to the USA on an Emirates Airlines flight, the Complainant faced an issue upon his return, specifically regarding the non-receipt of one of his bags at the Delhi Airport. The bag contained valuable items, including clothing, currency in Indian and U.S. dollars, a wrench set, and a mobile phone. The Complainant promptly reported the missing bag to the authorities at Indira Gandhi International Airport, filling out a baggage inventory form. Despite the Complainant's efforts, the bag was not delivered, leading to a loss of goods valued at Rs. 1,64,453/-. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, Punjab (“District Commission”) against Emirates Airlines and the Insurance Company.

The Complainant contended that Emirates Airlines was negligent in handling his baggage, failing to fulfil their duty of delivering the baggage to the rightful owner. The Complainant alleged that Emirates and the Insurance Company attempted to evade liability by requesting evidence of the items listed in the baggage, despite the Complainant providing the necessary information in the inventory form.

In response, Emirates Airlines argued against the maintainability of the complaint, lack of jurisdiction, and lack of cause of action. According to the airlines, the Complainant travelled from Seattle to Delhi via Dubai on connecting flights, during which he loaded his baggage onto the flights from Seattle and Dubai. It claimed that all the baggage, including the allegedly missing one, was offloaded onto the conveyor belt at the Delhi airport. It specifically points out Clause 8.3.3 of the conditions of carriage, which prohibited passengers from including valuables and currencies in checked baggage.

The Insurance Company argued that the Complainant's insurance policy does not cover partial loss of checked-in baggage and excludes coverage for valuables, and Indian and foreign currency, as specified in the policy's exclusion clause. It claimed to have communicated with the Complainant, requesting essential documents, such as confirmation from the airline regarding baggage loss and compensation, invoice and receipt of items, and a copy of the cheque. It argued that the Complainant failed to submit these crucial documents, preventing the proper processing of the claim.

Observations by the Commission:

Referring to the argument of Emirates Airlines that the Complainant was prohibited from carrying cash in the checked-in baggage, the District Commission referred to the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Emirates Vs Dr Rakesh Chopra III [(2013) CPJ 500 (NC)], where it held that airlines cannot seek to settle consumer grievances regarding the loss of baggage solely based on the notional monetary loss suffered, as per the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The judgment emphasized that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986, provide consumers with an additional remedy beyond the scope of existing laws. Therefore, the District Commission held that consumers can be entitled to compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, extending beyond the liability stipulated in the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Further, the District Commission emphasized the airline's duty as the custodian entrusted with the safe custody and delivery of passengers' luggage. It emphasized that custodians of goods, including airlines, cannot be allowed to exempt themselves from accountability towards the goods they handle.

The District Commission in regards to the liability of the Insurance Company noted that in the course of procuring business, insurance companies actively deploy officers and agents, yet at the crucial juncture of claim settlement, the level of assistance provided by the company's officials or Third-Party Administrators (TPAs) to policyholders is limited. The District Commission underscored the necessity for insurance companies to adopt a more liberal approach to settling claims, avoiding undue technicalities. It referred to the decision of the Supreme Court decision in Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. [2022(2) 281 (SC)], where insurance companies were criticized for becoming overly technical and arbitrary during claim settlement. It emphasized that once valid insurance is in place, companies should not excessively demand documents beyond the control of the insured.

Therefore, the District Commission directed the Complainant to submit the additional documents within 15 days. Subsequently, the Insurance Company was instructed to consider and reimburse the Complainant's claim as per the T&C of the policy within 30 days from the date of receiving the documents from the Complainant. The District Commission also directed Emirates Airlines to pay a composite compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days.

Case Title: S.K. Garg vs Emirates Airlines and Ors.

Case No.: CC/19/481

Advocate for the Complainant: Ankur Ghai

Advocate for the Respondent: Rohit Vashisht and Rajeev Abhi

Click Here To Read/Download Order