Emirates Airlines to Pay Compensation Rs 2 Lakh for Baggage Loss

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Emirates Airlines (appellant) V. Dr Rakesh Chopra (respondent) in First Appeal No. 204 of 2008 set aside the appeal petition of the appellant filed against state commission order that had granted compensation to the respondent for deficiency of services under Consumer Protection Act. The National Commission also upheld the order passed by the State Commission that had awarded rupees 2 lakhs as compensation to the respondents for deficiency of services and directed the appellants to pay the said amount within 8 weeks and further directed that the appellants shall be liable to pay said amount carrying interest of 9 per cent per annum for the period of default in case there was failure by the appellants in payment of the said amount within the period stipulated.

The facts that lead to the present appeal petition were that the respondents had taken appellant airlines flight to Athens and found his checked-in luggage containing personal clothing, gifts and papers for conference for which he was visiting Athens missing. The respondent as result lost his valuable belongings and was also not able to attend the medical conference which was great personal professional loss to him. The respondent thereafter made a formal complaint to the appellants in this regards which went unheard and it was only upon vehement protest by the respondent that he was offered a sum of money as compensation as per the Carrier Law which the respondent took. The respondent on his way to return through the appellant flight again found himself subjected to the same situation and founded his checked-in luggage tampered along with some important papers missing.

The respondent thereafter in view of these circumstances through letters made complaints to the appellants and sought restoration of the misplaced luggage and sought 1000 dollars as compensation for loss of goods and articles and mental agony caused to him. The appellant offered an amount in accordance to Carriage by Air Act 1972 for the misplaced goods on the basis of weight of goods.

The respondents feeling aggrieved by this sum filed complaint before the state commission alleging deficiency of services. The appellant denied the same. The State commission upon hearing the submissions and relying upon the evidence allowed the complaint and held that loss of baggage per se amounted to ‘deficiency’ in services as provided under section 2 (1) (g) of consumer protection act, 1986 and ordered the appellants to pay lump sum amount of rupees 2 lakhs as compensation to respondents. The commission held that the circumstance of not delivering luggage or short delivery or late delivery of luggage itself amounted deficiency of services for which consumer is entitled for compensation. The state commission also observed that

"The quality and standard of service has to be tested on the anvil of definition provided by section 2(1) (g) which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."

The appellant appealed against the said order. The appellant before the national commission denied any misbehaviour. The appellant contended further that loss of baggage was a general occurrence and to meet this eventuality the carriage by air act governing Airline travel had clearly spelled out terms for compensation and the Airlines had promptly provided the same. The appellant submitted that the order of state commission was liable to be set aside as it had failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of the appellant airlines and provisions of carrier act that provides compensation for the loss of baggage. The appellant submitted further that the award of such enhanced compensation shall only lead to prolonging of litigation. The respondent on the other hand contended that the state commission had rightly observed that apart from the compensation that was offered to respondent as per the carrier law, the appellant was bound to pay compensation of rupees 2 lakhs to the respondents as a consumer under consumer act for deficiency of services.

The National commission after looking into facts and circumstances and contentions of the appellant and respondent held that there was deficiency in services on part of the appellant airlines in loosing and manhandling respondent baggage which had caused harassment, agony, mental tension, monetary loss and professional loss him. The Commission held that hence the respondent was entitled to compensation for this deficiency of services.

The commission observed that respondent had entrusted his baggage to the appellant for safe custody and safe delivery and this was misplaced by the appellant leading to loss to the respondent. The commission said that though the appellant had settled claim for the loss of respondent baggage under Carriage by Air Act but still the respondent was entitled to compensation under Consumer Act. The commission observed that consumer protection act had been enacted to provide relief to the consumer for any deficiency of service or for any unfair trade practice by service provider or trader and hence the consumer were entitled to claim for deficiency of service. The commission further observed that the provisions of consumer act provides to the consumer additional remedy besides those that are existing under any other existing law thereby making the consumer-respondent  entitled to the compensation for deficiency of services.

The national commission therefore upheld the state commission order and held that respondent was entitled to the compensation for deficiency in service on account of harassment and agony caused to him in wake of manhandling of baggage by the Appellant airline.

Law Senate Comment

This judgment is significant as it has clearly held that airborne passengers can claim damages for loss of baggage under 2 heads that are under Carrier Law (Carriage by Air Act, 1972) and Consumer Protection Act, 1986.