Bags arrived ‘ripped’ open with items ‘missing’, airline told to pay Rs 3.61 lakh

The consumer commission noted that the complainants acted with “complete promptness and due diligence” and immediately upon arrival in Toronto reported the ripped bags. (AI-generated image)

A Delhi consumer commission has found an airline deficient in handling and protecting the luggage of the complainants and directed it to pay Rs 3.61 lakh, after two of their checked-in bags allegedly arrived in Toronto severely damaged and with items missing during a foreign trip.

President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, along with members Harpreet Kaur Charya and Ashwani Kumar Mehta, held that the airline, which had exclusive custody of the baggage on the Miami-Toronto sector, failed to produce any meaningful internal investigation or baggage search report explaining how the bags were delivered ripped open.

“The opposite party 2 (airline) has also failed to submit any report of a meaningful internal investigation or produce an official baggage search/survey report explaining as to how checked baggage in their exclusive custody was delivered ripped wide open with missing items of the complainants. Opposite party 2 cannot escape its liability by hiding behind technical pleas when gross negligence in baggage custody is evident on the face of the record,” the August 14 order read. 

Foreign trip, baggage damaged, items lost

The complainants took a foreign trip from Delhi to the US and Canada in May–June 2017. They claimed that when they reached Toronto, they found that two of their bags containing personal baggage were damaged and torn due to mishandling. They claimed that, upon inspecting the baggage, they found that several costly items, items of daily use and gift articles they had carried for friends and relatives in the US and Canada, were missing from the baggage.

They lodged a baggage claim with the airline and submitted a list of missing articles, including personal jewellery, an Apple iPod, a camera, premium woollen clothing, gift articles, watches, cosmetics, among other items. They initially reported missing articles worth US$1,800, but later increased their claim to US$17,461 after being asked to provide a detailed inventory and supporting documents.

However, the airline rejected the claim, citing discrepancies in the information and invoices submitted by the complainants. The complainants, on the other hand, claimed that they had submitted photographs showing the damaged baggage, which was ripped wide open.

‘Airline evaded responsibility’

The commission noted that the complainants acted with “complete promptness and due diligence” and immediately upon arrival in Toronto on June 2, 2017, reported the ripped bags and missing items to the airport staff of the airline.

Story continues below this ad

It also observed that the airline had “systematically attempted to evade its operational responsibility” by shifting blame to another airline, despite the record showing that the physical custody and handling of the checked baggage on the Miami-Toronto sector rested entirely with the airline held liable in the case.

The commission held that since the damage and pilferage occurred while the baggage was under the custody of the airline, no operational deficiency was established against the other airline involved in the complainants’ foreign trip.

Accordingly, it directed the airline to pay the complainants US$1,800, equivalent to Rs 1.11 lakh at the exchange rate used by the commission, towards the damage to the baggage and loss of missing articles. It also directed the airline to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation for mental agony, harassment, hardship and inconvenience, and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs.

Airline’s defence

The airline, in its defence, argued that the complainants’ conduct was mala fide, pointing out that they sought to claim amounts for lost items from the airline while simultaneously pursuing a claim against the insurance company that had insured their travel.

Story continues below this ad

It was added that the complainants had repeatedly expanded their claim by adding new items to the list of articles allegedly missing from their baggage.

The airline also claimed that the complainants had booked their tickets for travel from New Delhi to the US and Canada with another airline, which had subcontracted the Miami-Toronto sector to it.

It was further argued that the complainants had asserted different amounts in relation to the same alleged loss, initially US$1,800, subsequently US$15,430 and finally US$17,461. The airline argued that there were serious discrepancies in the claim and the itemised list of lost articles, which led it to reject the claim.

Takeaway

This ruling highlights that an airline cannot evade responsibility by shifting the blame to another carrier when the baggage was in its exclusive custody and it failed to explain how the bags were damaged and items went missing.

Story continues below this ad

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi helpline: 011-23379146) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

Kerala builder to pay Rs 25 lakh as ‘unfit’ home forces family out within 2 years

15-km walk to Vaishno Devi without ‘travel help’, agency to pay Rs 5 lakh to travellers

LIC denied claim over son’s Covid death, ordered to pay mother Rs 2.25 lakh

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express (Digital), where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More