SpiceJet passenger wins Rs 2 lakh damage for airline losing check-in bag containing his wife's gold jewellery; Know how this husband won

Time of India

19-06-2025

Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Sections 151 and 152 of Indian Contract Act, 1872,
Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
Supreme Court precedent set by the case: Consumer and Citizen Forum vs Karnataka Power Corporation (1994 (1) CPR 130)
How did this compensation for lost baggage case start?
May 2, 2013: The passenger booked an international flight SG-46 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi. There were two suitcases of 23 kg each and they were duly accepted and acknowledged by the staff of SpiceJet. The airline issued baggage receipts no. SG-0775590633 & 34.
The passenger booked an international flight SG-46 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi. There were two suitcases of 23 kg each and they were duly accepted and acknowledged by the staff of SpiceJet. The airline issued baggage receipts no. SG-0775590633 & 34. May 2, 2013: One of his bags could not be located upon his arrival in Delhi airport, so he contacted SpiceJet's customer care representative and then proceeded to file a complaint.
One of his bags could not be located upon his arrival in Delhi airport, so he contacted SpiceJet's customer care representative and then proceeded to file a complaint. May 5 and 6 of 2013: He emailed SpiceJet about the missing bag and got the reply that investigation is on. He was verbally assured that the bag will be recovered soon.
He emailed SpiceJet about the missing bag and got the reply that investigation is on. He was verbally assured that the bag will be recovered soon. May 11, 2013: He sent an email to the nodal officer of SpiceJet seeking an update. He got the reply that the suitcase has been declared lost and so he is entitled to a compensation of Rs 200 per kg with the maximum cap of Rs 3,000 as compensation.
He sent an email to the nodal officer of SpiceJet seeking an update. He got the reply that the suitcase has been declared lost and so he is entitled to a compensation of Rs 200 per kg with the maximum cap of Rs 3,000 as compensation. May 19, 2013: He wrote to SpiceJet's Appellate Authority but did not get any satisfactory result. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice but still got no reply. He then proceeded to file a consumer complaint with the Delhi District Consumer Commission.
He wrote to SpiceJet's Appellate Authority but did not get any satisfactory result. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice but still got no reply. He then proceeded to file a consumer complaint with the Delhi District Consumer Commission. December 7, 2023: Delhi District Consumer Commission held SpiceJet guilty and ordered it to give Rs 1.5 lakh compensation and Rs 50,000 as litigation charges to the passenger.
What did the Delhi State Consumer Commission say about lost baggage in airline check-in baggage?
It is the primary contention of the Appellant (SpiceJet) that the terms and conditions explicitly advised passengers not to carry valuable items in their checked-in baggage, and that in doing so, the risk and responsibility for any such loss would lie solely with the passenger. It has been averred that these stipulations formed part of the contractual understanding between the parties.
Furthermore, the Appellant (SpiceJet) has contended that the terms and conditions impose a capping of the compensation at a sum of Rs 3,000 in the event of loss or damage to checked-in baggage.
A perusal of the observation of the district commission makes it clear that the Appellant (SpiceJet) failed to place on record any cogent material to show any policy printed on the E-ticket or displayed at the counter where check in baggage was deposited to the effect that passenger shall not carry valuables in the check in baggage and acting contrary will be at their risk.
Furthermore, the Appellant (Spicejet) has again failed to produce the aforesaid E-ticket before this Commission and therefore, in absence of any documentary proof to the contrary, we are constrained to not interfere with the observations of the District Commission.
Delhi State Consumer Commission says Spicejet failed in its fundamental obligation hence liable to pay compensation
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
It remains an undisputed fact that the Appellant (SpiceJet) failed in its fundamental obligation to safely deliver the checked-in baggage of the Respondent (passenger). The District Commission rightly observed that the Appellant (SpiceJet) failed to exercise the reasonable degree of care and caution in handling the baggage.
Even otherwise, the Appellant (SpiceJet) has not produced any cogent material to controvert the factual findings of the District Commission, at the appellate stage.
Given that the Appellant was entrusted with the custody of the baggage as a bailee under the law, the Appellant had a legal duty to ensure its safe and timely return.
The failure to fulfil this obligation constitutes a clear deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and accordingly, the Appellant is liable to compensate the Respondent for the resultant loss and inconvenience.
Delhi State Consumer Commission answers why this baggage lost case is different from the other cases
Though the Appellant (SpiceJet) has placed reliance upon a number of judicial precedents in support of its submissions, however, the distinguishing factor in the present matter lies in the absence of any material on record to reflect that the terms and conditions purportedly governing the contractual relationship were ever furnished to, or made known to, the Respondent (passenger).
The failure to place the terms and conditions on the e-ticket effectively negates the argument that there existed a binding contractual clause limiting liability. In the absence of knowledge or communication of such conditions to the Respondent (passenger), it cannot be said that a valid contract incorporating these terms came into existence. This factor significantly distinguishes the present case from the facts in the precedents cited by the Appellant (SpiceJet), thereby rendering reliance on the precedents cited inapplicable.
What might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement?
Airlines must prominently display and effectively communicate all terms and conditions, especially those limiting liability or advising against carrying certain items. Mere availability in fine print is insufficient; airlines must be able to prove that consumers were genuinely aware of and agreed to these terms.
Airlines are held to a high standard of care for checked baggage under the Indian Contract Act. The burden of proof lies with the airline to explain any loss or damage, and failure to do so constitutes a clear "deficiency in service".
The judgment confirms that "deficiency in service" extends beyond direct monetary loss to include non-pecuniary damages such as mental harassment, agony, and inconvenience. This supports claims for comprehensive compensation.
Consumer complaints can be filed where the "cause of action" arises (e.g., where the baggage was lost or not delivered), providing consumers with flexibility in choosing the forum.
On May 27, 2025, the President of Delhi State Consumer Commission ordered SpiceJet Airlines to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation in total after they lost a passenger's checked-in bag containing his wife's gold jewellery, expensive clothes, etc. The airline was ready to pay Rs 200 per kg up to Rs 3,000 as compensation for this lost bag, but the passenger did not accept this money and hence filed a consumer complaint that resulted in this favourable judgement.The incident happened more than 10 years ago on May 2, 2013, when the passenger was travelling with his wife and minor son were returning from a vacation in Nepal to Delhi. They had two bags weighing 23 kg each. At Kathmandu Airport, the two bags were scanned and tagged for check-in baggage, but when he landed at Delhi Airport, one of the bags, specifically the one containing the gold jewellery and expensive clothes, could not be located and was deemed lost.The airline staff in Delhi Airport told him to file an irregularity report and so he did. But despite the best efforts of the airline and its investigation officer, that specific bag could not be located. The airline told him that for lost luggage he is entitled to compensation of Rs 200 per kg with a maximum cap of Rs 3,000 as compensation.Unhappy over the meagre compensation amount, the passenger tried to raise this issue with the airline's management and even sent them a legal notice. However, he did not get the desired response and nor did he find the bag containing the jewels. He alleged that he was made to run from the pillar to post by the airline. Hence, he filed a complaint with Delhi District Consumer Commission at first and then with the Delhi State Consumer Commission.The airline's lawyers told the Delhi State Consumer Commission that passengers are well aware about the terms and conditions mentioned in the e-ticket which states no valuables and medications should be carried in check-in baggage. The airline said if a passenger contravenes this rule, then they are doing this at their own risk. The airline's lawyers also said that the passenger has violated the said conditions and thus cannot take advantage of his own wrong.Both the consumer commissions (district and state) rejected SpiceJet's argument and ruled in the passenger's favour.The Delhi State Consumer Commission said that the airline has failed to show any evidence of this baggage policy about passengers not carrying valuables in the check-in baggage being printed on the e-ticket or displayed at the airline's counter in the airport. In legal language, the lack of evidence showing placement of the terms and conditions effectively negated the argument that there existed a binding contractual clause limiting liability of the airline for lost luggage.Hence the state consumer commission ordered SpiceJet (the airline) to pay Rs 1.5 lakh for mental harassment and Rs 50,000 for litigation expenses. The consumer commission said that this present case is different from the other baggage lost case and hence decided this judgement in the passenger's favour by interpreting:Read below to know why the airline -- SpiceJet -- lost this case and why this passenger could get Rs 2 lakh total compensation for lost baggage.According to the order of the Delhi State Consumer Commission dated May 27, 2025, here's the timeline of events:SpiceJet filed an appeal against this order with the Delhi State Consumer Commission.According to the order of the Delhi State Consumer Commission dated May 27, 2025, here's what the commission said:The Delhi State Consumer Commission upheld the district commission's order which said SpiceJet to pay compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh for mental harassment and agony and Rs 50,000 as litigation expenses.In the final judgement, the Delhi State Consumer Commission said:The Delhi State Consumer Commission said:ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement for consumers. Here's what they said:The key takeaways from this judgment include:This case holds significant importance for consumers, particularly concerning their rights when engaging with service providers such as airlines. It firmly establishes that service providers cannot unilaterally impose terms and conditions without ensuring they are adequately brought to the consumer's notice. In the present case, both the District Commission and the State Commission found that SpiceJet failed to demonstrate that its terms limiting liability for lost baggage were prominently communicated on the e-ticket or displayed at the counter.Consequently, consumers are not bound by hidden or uncommunicated stipulations. The judgment further reaffirms a fundamental duty of care upon service providers for goods entrusted to them, acting as bailees. Their failure to safely deliver checked-in baggage constitutes a clear deficiency in service, warranting compensation for the consumer's loss and inconvenience caused. This case underscores that consumers can pursue remedies beyond nominal compensation if an airline is found negligent and its terms were not properly disclosed.This judgment underscores the critical importance of communicating terms and conditions, particularly those limiting liability, by service providers. Such terms are not binding unless prominently displayed or explicitly brought to the consumer's notice, such as on e-tickets or at service counters. The ruling reiterates that the burden of proving due care for entrusted goods, acting as a bailee, lies squarely with the service provider, clarifying obligations under relevant contract and evidence laws.Significantly, the failure to safely deliver checked-in baggage constitutes a clear deficiency in service under consumer protection statutes, establishing liability beyond mere nominal compensation.