Pranav B Prem

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member), has upheld the findings of the District Consumer Commission and held SpiceJet liable for deficiency in service due to its failure to safely deliver the complainant’s checked-in baggage on an international flight from Kathmandu to New Delhi. The appeal filed by SpiceJet against the district forum’s compensation order was dismissed, with the State Commission affirming the award of ₹1,50,000 for mental harassment and ₹50,000 for litigation costs.

Also Read: NCLT Delhi Rules, Corporate Debtor Can't Deny Transaction For Which It Earlier Gave Approval

The case originated from a flight taken on 02.05.2013 by the complainant, Kapil Singh Pal, who along with his family was returning to Delhi from Kathmandu. Upon landing, he discovered that one of his two checked-in bags was missing. The baggage, which reportedly contained a jewellery set, sarees, and suits, was never recovered. Though the complainant immediately contacted SpiceJet's customer care representative at the airport and was made to fill out a baggage irregularity report, he received no update for several days. On 11.05.2013, the airline informed him via email that the baggage had been declared lost and that compensation of ₹200 per kg, up to a cap of ₹3,000, would be paid.

Contesting this, the complainant issued a legal notice and eventually approached the District Consumer Commission, arguing that SpiceJet’s internal compensation limit was below the statutory liability provided under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. He asserted that the airline had been negligent in its handling of the baggage and had attempted to absolve itself of liability without adhering to legal standards.

In its defence, SpiceJet argued that the terms and conditions printed on the e-ticket explicitly warned passengers not to check in valuables, and that by doing so, the complainant acted at his own risk. The airline also contended that the complainant had failed to produce any evidence or declaration regarding the contents of the lost bag and relied on internal guidelines capping compensation at ₹3,000.

The District Commission, in its detailed analysis, noted that the e-ticket provided (Ex. C1) contained no such warning about valuables, nor had SpiceJet produced any material to show that such conditions were communicated via other means such as email or SMS. The Commission held that the airline failed to take due care as required under Sections 151 and 152 of the Indian Contract Act, and that the absence of a proper explanation for the missing baggage amounted to negligence and deficiency in service.

When the matter came up in appeal before the State Commission, SpiceJet reiterated its arguments, including an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission. However, the State Commission dismissed the jurisdictional objection, holding that the cause of action arose in Delhi where the baggage was to be delivered but was not, thus giving the District Commission authority under Section 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Commission further noted that the airline failed to produce the actual e-ticket even during the appeal and did not provide evidence that the complainant had been made aware of the limiting contractual terms. Emphasizing that there can be no binding contract if crucial terms are not disclosed, the Commission concluded that SpiceJet could not rely on the alleged conditions to limit its liability.

The Commission also highlighted that the responsibility to care for the baggage was that of the airline, acting in the role of a bailee, and its failure to do so constituted a deficiency in service. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the State Commission upheld the District Commission’s decision in full.

Also Read: NCLAT Delhi Rules, When Entire Debt Amount Has Been Re-Paid, CIRP Process Can't Be Continued

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed SpiceJet's appeal and confirmed the District Commission's finding of deficiency in service. The airline was held liable for failing to deliver the complainant’s baggage and was directed to pay ₹1,50,000 as compensation for mental harassment and ₹50,000 as litigation costs.

Appearance

Mr. Rohit Kumar, Counsel for Appellant 

Mr. Shekhar Shri Prakash, counsel for Respondent

Cause Title: SpiceJet Ltd. V. Kapil Singh Pal

Case No: First Appeal 59/2024

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal [President], Hon’ble Ms. Pinki [Member (Judicial)]

[Read/Download order]