Jet Airways asked to pay Rs 28K to Chandigarh woman for losing her bag
The amount of Rs 28,750 that the airline will finally pay to Puneet includes Rs 15,000 compensation for unfair trade practice and causing harassment to the customer, Rs 7,000 as litigation expenses and another Rs 6,750 as mandated by rules governing transport of luggage by airlinespunjab Updated: Jun 10, 2017 15:20 IST
Complaining might not win you friends, but it can certainly help you get more money for deficient service from the service provider that has inconvenienced you.
Two years after Jet Airways admitted to having lost her check-in baggage on a flight from Pune to Chandigarh in July 2015, the local consumer court has ordered the airline to pay Rs 28,750 as compensation to Sector-37 resident, Puneet Khanna. The airline had offered her Rs 6,750 as compensation, claiming that it was the maximum that she was entitled to under rules.
Puneet wrote to the airline, claiming the compensation as meagre. On receiving no response, she moved the District Consumer Disputes Forum, claiming that her bag contained clothes and items worth Rs 66,200. She also alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Responding to the petition, Jet Airways pleaded that ‘sincere efforts were made to locate/trace baggage of the complainant’. Members of the forum remained unconvinced and noted that the staff had admitted that the baggage of the complainant was lost, but failed to trace it.
“The harassment to the complaint is evident. The losing of baggage amounts to deficiency in service... the airline has to compensate for the same,” the forum said in order.
The amount of Rs 28,750 that the airline will finally pay to Puneet includes Rs 15,000 compensation for unfair trade practice and causing harassment to the customer, Rs 7,000 as litigation expenses and another Rs 6,750 as mandated by rules governing transport of luggage by airlines.
Complainant had said her bag contained items worth Rs 66,000; airline had offered Rs 6,700 compensation, saying this was the maximum she was entitled to under rules