Decided on January 17,2020

Indigo Airlines Appellant
Aastha Pansari Respondents


M.SHREESHA,J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2017, in Appeal No. 1481 of 2016 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission"), Indigo Airlines (hereinafter referred to as "the Airlines") has preferred this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant and set aside the order dated 24.10.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-III (for short "the District Forum") vide which the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts in the instant case are that the Complainant's marriage was fixed for 06.12.2009, but she had got the marriage date extended to 16.02.2010, enable her to make purchases of her choice with respect to ornaments, sarees, garments etc. and got married, at Hotel Clark Aamer, Jaipur. It is averred that three days subsequent to the marriage on 19.02.2010, the Complainant with her husband and other relatives boarded Indigo flight No. 6E 207 at 08: 15 a.m. from Jaipur to Kolkata. It is averred that they were carrying five bags with them, which were all booked in vide tag Nos. 6E 0000397510, 6E 0000397511, 6E 0000397512, 6E 0000397513 and 6E 0000397514. It is stated that on arrival at Kolkata only four bags were received by the Complainant and that the fifth bag was missing, which was immediately reported to the competent authority. The said bag with tag No. 6E 0000397513 contained the following precious items: JUDGEMENT_124_LAWS(NCD)1_2020_1.html
(3.) It is averred that all these aforenoted items have a special emotional connection, as they were all purchased for her wedding and for using the same in her marital home. It is also stated that the Complainant suffered severe mental agony as her marriage was solemnized only three days ago and she had lost the garments, which she had selected by choice. On 21.02.2010, an email was sent to the Airlines, who did not reply. Another email was sent on 23.02.2010, for which the Airlines replied that baggage was untraceable despite repeated searches have been done by them. It is averred that said bag also contained the marriage certificate of the Complainant on account of the non-availability of which the Complainant could not even go to the honeymoon with her Husband.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.