issue 1, opp complainant.pdf

TEAM CODE: TC- 02 Memorial for COMPLAINANT ARGUMENTSADVANCED ISSUE. WHETHER SPIRIT AIRLINES IS LIABLEFOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019? It is...

TEAM CODE: TC- 02 Memorial for COMPLAINANT ARGUMENTSADVANCED ISSUE. WHETHER SPIRIT AIRLINES IS LIABLEFOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019? It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the respondent is liable for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 20 19, due to significant inconvenience caused to the complainant by the delay and damage to her baggage, resulting in considerable loss. The petitioner contends that the service provided by respondent was the direct result of respondent's negligence and lack of standards. Itis submitted that Respondent is liable on primarily three grounds: 11 That the Delayed Baggage constitutes Deficiency in Service 12 That the Respondent was Negligent in Baggage Han dling 1.3 That there was Breach Of Regulatory Norms and Guidelines 1.1That the Delayed Baggage Constitutes Deficiency in Service: Pursuant to Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, "deficiency of service" is defined as "any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force, or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes; INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 Page | 11  TEAM CODE: TC- 02 Memorial for COMPLAINANT and (a) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person to the consumer (b) deliberate withholding of relevant information bysuch person to the consumer." It is submitted that the failure to deliver the checked-in baggage to the complainant constitutes a deficiency in service under Section 2(1 ) of the Act. The delay has caused significant disruption and inconvenience to the complainant, representing a breach of the respondent's duty to ensure the timely delivery of services. In Jasbir SinghPurba Vs Jet Airways India Ltd. , the court directed the opposition party to pay the petitioner as compensation.also awarded some amount on account of mental agony, wherein the baggage was substantially delayed which contained luxury clothing intended for a function which resulted in baggage arriving only after the function had concluded and held that the principle of awarding just and reasonable compensation is based on "estitutio in integrum which mandates that the claimant should receive a monetary sum sufficient to restore them to the position they would have been in had the wrongful act not occurred Similarly, in the present case, the complainant travelled to attend a wedding, carrying luxury clothing intended for the event. Upon retrieval, some of these items were found to be missing from the baggage, andthe baggage was damaged and chipped. There fore, the airline is deemed to have commited a deficiency in service and shall be held liable. In Emirates vs Dr. Rakesh Chopra, The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stated that, There is, of course, no doubt that based on the provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 the Appellant Airlines had offered to pay the loss, which has been calculated as being 280 US Dollars since these claims are settled on the basis of weight and not on the value of the goods that have been lost ,because there was deficiency in service on the part of Appellant Airlines in losing and mishandling the Respondents luggage, which caused him harassment, agony, mental tension and loss of professional face apart from monetary loss, he is entitled to compensation for this deficiency in service on Appellants part as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission while taking note of this fact has directed the Appellant Airlines to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 Lakhs for the deficiency in service as well as for harassment, agony and mental tension caused to the Respondent, which is admittedly not taken into account for settlement of such claims under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 as also the terms and conditions of theAppellant-Airlines. INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 Page | 12 Memorial for COMPLAINANT TEAM CODE: TC- 02 bection Is) of the cariage by air oct, 1972 states that the carrier is liable for damage Sustained in the event of destruction or loss of, or of damage to, any registered baggage or any cargo, it the occurrence which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air. According to Section 19 of the carriage by air act. 1972. the carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. 1.2 That Airline was Negligent in Baggage Handling The airline's handling of the baggage demonstrates a lack of due diligence and care, thereby constituting negligence. This failure to properly handle the baggage further exacerbates the deficiency in service. When a passenger purchases a ticket, the airline assumes responsibility for the transportation of both the passenger and their baggage. This responsibility is governed by statutory law and international conventions. In India, the relevant statute is the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which incorporates the provisions of the Warsaw, Hague, and Montreal Conventions into domestic law. In the case of Cers Vs. Spice.Jet Ltd, the Commission observed: "It is self-evident that once baggage is entrusted to the airline authorities, the airline is obligated to return the baggage in the same condition in which it was received, without any damage." Similarly in present case, the Spirit Airlines was negligent in handling her checked in baggage since the petitioners baggage which contained items that were necessary for her for the reason of flying was delivered to her after 10 days that too parts of her suitcase being damaged and chipped and valuable items being missing which points to improper security and tracking measures on the part of airline , allowing the loss or theft of personal belongings and some items being damaged which showed visible signs of mishandling upon retrieval by airline system , causing her not only financial loss but also mental anguish and distress. INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 Page | 13  TEAM CODE: TC- 02 Memorial for COMPLAINANT Therefore , it is humbly submited that in licht of the above submissions, r that the Hon ble Commission adjudicate on this matter in favour of the complainant, holding respondent accountable for the deficiencies in service and associated damages. The respondent has failed to fulfil its obligation to handle baggage with the requisite care, thus constituting adeficiency in service quality as defined under Section 2(0) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Specifically, this section addresses situations where the quality and standard of service fall short of what was contractually agreed upon or reasonably expected. In this case, the airline's failure to ensure the safe handling of the complainant's baggage represents a breach of the implied service standards associated with the purchase of aflight ticket and is liable. In Jet Ainwas () Lid. Vs Ajit Kumar Sinha , the complainant travelled for a specific professional meeting, carrying essential documents in the checked-in baggage. The baggage was misrouted by the airline's system, which constitutes a deficiency in service due to mishandling and negligence. The appellant had extended an interim compensation offer as a gesture of goodwill, which was declined by the complainant. The district forum held that the interim compensation offered by the appellant amounts admission of deficiency of service and also held that there was acontract of rendering services by the appellant and time being the critical element of that contract and awarded compensation for mental agony , economic loss and litigation costs to the complainant. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that, in the present case, the Respondent shall be held liable for deficiency in services since it had an inherent duty to exercise reasonable care in handling the Complainant's baggage, by accepting the baggage at check-in, the respondent assumed responsibility for its safe and timely delivery, also, this duty is apart of the implied contract of carriage and is regulated under aviation laws and guidelines. The Complainant's checked in baggage contained luxurious items, gifts and dresses which were important for her specific function for which she travelled and the respondent shall provide her with the fair redressal in accordance with the disruption and inconvenience she suffered. In Air Indiavs Dr. P.K. Singla, it is stated that the non- arrival of the baggage along with the passengers in the same flight and losing and mishandling the luggage is certainly a gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and its agents/servants. Moreover, the baggage was delivered after four days and that too with broken locks having precious articles missing from the same. Law and precedence can only support the rightful actions of the Airlines INTRA M00T COURT COMPETITION, 2024 Page | 14  1 TEAM CODE:TC- 02 Memorial for COMIPLAINANT which the statt. They cannot support the theft and pilferage by their staff for dhd te managenment of the Airlines is responsible. where the baggage was missing and In Air Deccan, Kolkata vs K Venkata Syae. Duvaraka , weighing 12 Kgs was allegedly lostthe commission stated that ,Admittedly one of the bags not delivered which shows ex-facie negligence on the part of airlines. REGULATORY NORMS AND 1.3 THAT THERE WAS BREACH OF GUIDELINES baggage handling It is humbly submitted that the Respondent failed to comply with the other relevant bodies such standards set forth by the Directorate General Of Civil Aviation or to exercise due care in as Federal Aviation Administration. these standards require airlines transportation of baggage. Complainant is also entitled to In Bhupendra Singh vs Indigo Airways Limited, The service compensation for harassment from the opposition party because there was deficiency in caused harassment, on the part of opposition party in losing and mishandling the luggage which Commission agony,mental tension to the son of the complainant. Moreover, the Hon'ble State A-1036/2004 Delhi in case titled as British Airways Versus Stefano Pelle & anr. Appeal No. was relied upon by learned counsel for complainant has held that "It appears that this figure arrived at by the District Forum on production of receipts produced by the respondent. Even if the receipts were not produced stillthe passenger was entitled to such an expenditure which on the face of it appears to be reasonable for a man handling at foreign land would incur. The passenger is also entitled for adequate compensation arising out of the miseries and emotional sufferings and physical discomfort he encounters in such a situation when everything which was required on the day and for the subsequent days was lost. Any person who is stranded in such a situation in foreign land suffers immensely." The above said case law relied upon by learned counsel for complainant is also applicable in this case as son of complainant also suffered immensely in foreign land at the hands of ops and as such complainant is also entitled to another amount of compensation for harassment. In RK Anand vs Thai Ainways International Lid. , the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stated that, It is the need of the hour to compensate consumers adequately because INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 Page | 15  Memorial for COMPLAINANT TEAM CODE: TC- 02 of the increasing complaints of loss of bagoases booked with the Airlines and pilferage Or removal of several valuable items from the baooaoe and Failure of the Airlines not to handover the booked luggage in its intact position or without any pilferage condition amounts to deficiency in service. ISSUE II. WHETHER THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY SPIRIT AIRLINES ((3,000 AND ADISCOUNT VOUCHER) IS ADEQUATE AND FAIR? It is humbly submitted that the compensation provided by Respondent, Spirit Airlines amounting to 3,000 and a discount voucher, is neither adequate nor fair given the actual losses and inconvenience suffered by the complainant, Melanie Furtado. The airline contends that this compensation is in accordance with its terms and conditions. However, such terms cannot supersede the rights of consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which mandates that compensation must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the actual loss and inconvenience experienced. The following grounds support the inadequacy of the compensation: 2.1 The emotional distress and inconvenience caused.; 2.2 The damage to property caused.; 2.3 That the Compensation is inconsistent with the Spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 2.1 The emotional distress and inconvenience caused. It is humbly submitted that the compensation of 73,000 and a discount voucher provided by Respondent is grossly inadequate and does not reflect the full extent of emotional distress and inconvenience caused to the complainant. 2.1.1 Emotional Distress The delay in the delivery of the complainant's baggage caused significant distress, as the complainant was traveling to attend a family wedding. The suitcase contained not only essential clothing but also gifts intended for the event. The mental anguish, anxiety, and emotional distress experienced by the complainant, resulting from the uncertainty regarding the whereabouts of her belongings, are compensable under the provisions of consumer law. Emotional distress is recognized as a legitimate component of the inconvenience suffered due to the deficiency in service provided by the respondent. INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024 Page | 16