Airline Liability Limited: Consumer Commission Overturns Orders in Lost Baggage Case, Citing Contractual Terms.


14 October 2024 Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

In Spicejet Ltd. v/s Monil Modi., the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the matter of Spicejet Ltd. v/s Monil Modi., has overturned concurrent orders from lower consumer forums in a case involving lost baggage, ruling that an airline's liability is limited by the terms and conditions printed on the passenger's ticket. The decision highlights the importance of contractual obligations and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

The case involved a complainant who lost her checked-in baggage on a SpiceJet flight from Chennai to Jaipur. The baggage contained valuable items and a project report, for which she sought substantial compensation. The District Forum and the State Commission ruled in her favor, awarding significant sums for the lost items and mental agony.


 

 

However, the NCDRC, in its revisionary jurisdiction, found that the lower forums had failed to properly consider the airline's defense based on the contractual terms printed on the ticket. Specifically, the ticket contained a clause stating that the airline "highly recommends" passengers remove valuables from checked-in baggage and that if passengers choose to carry valuables in checked baggage, they do so at their own risk. The ticket further limited the airline's liability for lost baggage to Rs. 200 per kilogram, with a maximum of Rs. 3,000.

The NCDRC emphasized that these terms constituted a binding contract between the passenger and the airline. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and its own previous rulings, the commission held that consumers are expected to be aware of and abide by these terms. The commission specifically referenced cases such as "Spicejet Ltd. vs. Rajender Kaur" and "Indigo Airlines & Anr. Vs. Aastha Pansari," where similar contractual clauses were upheld.

The NCDRC concluded that the lower forums' failure to consider these contractual terms constituted a "material irregularity" in the exercise of their jurisdiction, warranting intervention. The commission stressed that while the Consumer Protection Act aims to provide speedy redressal, it does not absolve consumers of their contractual obligations.

In its ruling, the NCDRC allowed the revision petition, setting aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission, and dismissed the complaint. The commission ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

This decision serves as a reminder that contractual terms, particularly those printed on tickets and other travel documents, are legally binding. It also underscores the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which is primarily intended to correct jurisdictional errors and material irregularities, rather than re-evaluate factual findings. This ruling reinforces the importance of consumers being aware of the terms and conditions of their contracts and also protects airlines from excessive and unfair compensation claims when they have clearly laid out their limitations of liability.


Section 21, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986