Airline Ordered to Pay ₹2 Lakh After Losing Passenger’s Check-In Bag With Gold Jewellery: What This Judgment Means for Flyers
What Happened?
On May 27, 2025, the Delhi State Consumer Commission ordered SpiceJet to compensate a passenger with ₹2 lakh for losing a checked-in bag that contained his wife’s gold jewellery and expensive clothes. The incident occurred in May 2013, and the compensation includes:
- ₹1.5 lakh for mental harassment and agony
- ₹50,000 for litigation costs
Why SpiceJet’s Standard Compensation Was Rejected
SpiceJet initially offered ₹3,000, citing its baggage policy that limits liability to ₹200 per kg.
However, both the District and State Consumer Commissions found that:
- SpiceJet failed to prove this baggage policy was shared with the passenger
- There was no evidence the terms were printed on the e-ticket or displayed at the check-in counter
- Passengers must be explicitly informed about such liability limits for them to be legally binding
Timeline of Events
- May 2, 2013: Passenger returns to Delhi from Kathmandu; one bag goes missing
- May 5–11, 2013: Multiple emails and verbal assurances by SpiceJet—bag remains lost
- May–June 2013: Passenger escalates to nodal officer and sends legal notice
- 2023: Delhi District Commission rules in passenger’s favor
- 2025: Delhi State Commission upholds ruling, orders ₹2 lakh in total compensation
What the Commission Ruled
The Delhi State Consumer Commission emphasized:
- SpiceJet failed in its fundamental duty as a bailee under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
- There was a clear deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- Without proof of prior disclosure, SpiceJet’s policy limiting compensation was not enforceable
- This case was legally distinct from prior judgments SpiceJet relied upon
Key Legal Takeaways for Flyers
1. Airlines must clearly disclose liability limits
- Terms on the e-ticket or visible signage at counters are essential
- Hidden or fine-print clauses aren’t enforceable
2. Compensation isn’t just about lost items
- Courts recognize mental harassment and inconvenience as valid damages
- This case awarded ₹1.5 lakh purely for mental distress
3. Burden of proof is on airlines
- They must show reasonable care and disclose rules if they want to limit compensation
4. Consumers can file where the loss occurred
- Jurisdiction lies where the “cause of action” arose—such as the airport where baggage was lost
5. Standard liability clauses can be overridden
- Courts can ignore airline policies if they contradict consumer protection principles
Final Word
This judgment reinforces that airlines are accountable for their service obligations. When passengers are not properly informed of restrictive policies, the law will side with the consumer. The case sends a clear message: transparency and care are non-negotiable in consumer service—especially in air travel.
