By Neelanjit Das
On September 15, 2019, Kumar, a traveller arriving from Canada to Delhi, got the shock of his life when he spotted his check-in bag on the luggage conveyor belt, all damaged and taped up. After taking a closer look, he realized that several expensive items worth around Rs 2 lakh (USD 3,633) were missing from the bag. He immediately went to the airline’s counter at Delhi airport to file a PIR (Property Irregularity Report). The airline staff looked into it and confirmed that 1.5 kg of luggage was indeed missing from his bag that came from the Canada to Delhi flight. Income Tax GuideIncome Tax Slabs FY 2025-26Income Tax Calculator 2025New Income Tax Bill 2025As compensation for the missing items in his bag the airline offered him a USD 30 (Rs 2560 as of July 4, 2025, exchange rate) for the missing items. Feeling dissatisfied with such a small compensation amount, he filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Commission and later with the Haryana State Consumer Commission. The airline ended up losing the case in both the commissions.The items missing from his check-in bag included his Armani jacket and pullover, Rado wristwatch, 25-gram gold chain, Chanel perfume and a few other things. The total value of all these personal belongings was claimed to be USD 3633 or about Rs 2 lakh (as of September 2019 exchange rates). The airline calculated the compensation amount based on the IATA (International Air Transport Association) Montreal Convention guidelines for cases of theft. They also referenced DGCA regulations issued by the Government of India which cites a similar compensation formula, leading to the final offer of USD 30 (worth Rs 2560 in 2025) for the loss of items weighing 1.5 kg. The Consumer Commission ordered the airline to pay Rs 1.75 lakh with 8% interest starting from when the complaint was filed, plus Rs 15,000 for harassment and legal costs. The Haryana State Consumer Commission upheld this order and said the airline must pay. Additionally, the airline must also deposit Rs 95,000, which the Haryana State Consumer Commission ordered to be given to the passenger as a partial payment.Read below to find out why this airline passenger won the case in consumer commissions and the legal arguments that led to this victory.How did this case start?According to the order of the Haryana State Consumer Commission dated May 20, 2025, this is the timeline of the case:August 7, 2019: The passenger embarked on a 41-day world tour and boarded a Air India flight for Paris from Delhi. He stayed in Paris, France for 3 days.August 10 to 15 of 2019: He travelled to Spain via road and then travelled to Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Vatican City.August 15, 2019: He took a flight from Rome to the United Kingdom (England) and stayed there for 10 days.August 25, 2019: He took a flight for Toronto, Canada from the United Kingdom.September 3 to 13 of 2019: He went to Vancouver from Toronto and then went to the United States of America and then came back to Vancouver.September 13, 2019: His tour ended, and he took a flight back to India from Vancouver airport. His flight operated by China Eastern Airline (MU582) was from Vancouver to Delhi via Shanghai, China. He deposited his bag at the airline’s (China Eastern Airline) check-in counter and it was scanned and tagged for Delhi.September 14, 2019: He arrived in Shanghai, China and took the connecting flight for Delhi of the same airline.September 15, 2019: He arrived at Delhi (Indira Gandhi International Airport) and had to wait for more than one and half hour to receive his luggage and on arrival of his luggage, the complainant was shocked to find it badly damaged and wrapped with tape. The damage to the luggage and the disturbance to its contents were not typical of routine handling.What did the District Consumer Commission say?The District Consumer Commission on November 11, 2020 said:“Keeping in view the above discussion, we hereby accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum Rs.1,75,000 in lump sum to the complainant along with interest @ 8% from the date of lodging of the complaint with the OPs by the complainant till its realization. We also direct the opposite parties to further pay a sum of Rs.15,000 to the complainant as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses.”Also read: Passenger wins Rs 2 lakh as airline lost check-in bag containing his wife’s gold jewellery; Know how he wonState Consumer Commission finds the airline liable for deficiency of service under Article 10 of the Instruction rulesThe State Consumer Commission in its order dated May 20, 2025, said:It is true that when the complainant returned to India after successful completion of the journey, he received luggage in damaged condition. Perusal of the photographs of luggage shows that there was some damage in the luggage. It is also not disputed that the complainant (passenger) filled the Property Irregularity Report (PIR). It is also not disputed that luggage was found to be 1.5 kilogram less than the weight measured at Vancouver Airport. Since the weight of the luggage was found to be lesser, it is presumed that some articles were stolen by someone. It is the prime responsibility of the airline to compensate the complainant (passenger).Article 10 of the Instructions relating to liability for carriage by Air depicts that subject to the provisions of paragraphs No.1 and 2 of this articles, the carrier shall indemnify the consigner against all damage suffered by it, or by any other person to whom the consignor is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statements inserted by the carrier or on its behalf in the cargo receipt or in the record preserved by other means referred to in para No.2 of Article 4.Since the complainant has specifically mentioned the stolen articles in the PIR (Property Irregularity Report), the complainant is entitled for the compensation as prayed for.The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The State Consumer Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of the learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.Judgement: “Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The statutory amount of Rs 95,000 was deposited by the appellant (airline) at the time of filing of this appeal. This amount is now ordered to be reimbursed to the complainant — Kumar against proper receipt, identification and verification as per rules and registry of this Commission is accordingly directed.”If the airline agrees to pay the compensation, then it comes to Rs 1.75 lakh+6 years*8% of 1.75+15,000= Rs 2,74,000.Also read: Paid for business class air ticket but shifted to economy class; should the airline refund the difference and pay compensation?What did the airline’s lawyers say?According to the order of the State Consumer Commission, here’s what the airline’s lawyers said:Counsel for the appellant (airline) argued that the complainant (passenger) did not share the bill of the products that were claimed to be damaged. The appellant had started working from home since January 2020 as Covid-19 breakout in China during December 2019 and business in Airlines Industry, especially in China, was affected. The respondent-complainant (passenger) himself signed the PIR and admitted the loss to be of Rs 7,000 and loss of goods worth 2 lakh is malicious and after thought. The learned District Consumer Commission failed to appreciate that the IATA (International Air Transport Association) Montreal Convention rule in pilferage case that the appellant followed IATA rule which says 20 USD per KG was compensated to the passenger. The DGCA rules issued by the Govt. of India were also on the same lines. In this case, 1.5 kg was missing and USD30 should be compensated but the learned District Consumer Commission wrongly awarded Rs.1.75 lakh to the appellant. The complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed for.What is the significance of this case’s judgement for consumers?ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about the significance of this judgement for air travellers, here’s what they said:Prachi Dubey, Advocate, Delhi High Court, says: By allowing the claim of the complainant and providing relief beyond the pecuniary loss suffered, the court has established the applicability of consumer law to foreign service providers operating in Indian territory. It acts as a precedent that airlines must show care when handling and transporting passengers’ baggage, and that negligence in this regard would constitute a deficiency in service and so be punishable under consumer law. As it even accepted the Property Irregularity Report (PIR) and photographic evidence, it lends weight to their credibility in travel-related difficulties. The court even widened the ground of remedy from pecuniary loss to just compensation to consumers for mental anguish and inconvenience caused by deficiency of service.Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris, says: The significance of this judgement is:a) Affirms consumer rights against powerful service providers: The ruling reiterates that even large international airlines can be held accountable in Indian consumer forums for deficiencies in service such as damage or theft during transit.b) While airlines often invoke international conventions like the Montreal Convention to limit their liability (e.g., compensating only $20/kg of lost baggage), the Commission recognized actual losses supported by evidence like the PIR, photos, and witness statements. It shows courts may depart from standard limits if consumer harassment and deficiency are clearly established.c) The acceptance of the PIR and photographs as valid evidence for establishing the damage and loss strengthens the position of consumers who may not always have purchase bills or full documentation.d) The airline was proceeded ex parte initially for non-appearance, and this contributed to the court favoring the complainant. This underlines that companies ignoring proceedings may risk adverse orders.e) Despite the incident occurring abroad, the consumer could successfully seek justice in a local Indian consumer court, an empowering message for Indian travelers.Tushar Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, says: This judgment marks a stern reiteration that foreign carriers operating within the territory of India cannot insulate themselves from liability by invoking the limitations of international conventions such as the Montreal Convention or the IATA guidelines, especially where tangible evidence of negligence and deficiency in service is manifest. In awarding compensation substantially higher than the standardized compensation metrics of USD 20 per kilogram of lost baggage, the Commission has laid down a salutary precedent: that where the loss is duly documented, substantiated by a Property Irregularity Report (PIR), and corroborated by photographic evidence of damage and discrepancy in weight, the consumer is entitled to fair, just, and adequate restitution, not merely token redress. Of particular note is the Commission’s observation that the absence of original purchase invoices cannot be used as a shield to deny rightful compensation, especially where the loss pertains to personal belongings inherently carried during international travel. Furthermore, by granting a separate sum for harassment and litigation expenses, the Commission has highlighted the principle that emotional distress and mental agony, when occasioned by the indifference or failure of service providers, are actionable wrongs within the consumer jurisprudence framework. Harsh Pandya, Advocate, Delhi High Court, says: The Commission upheld the consumer’s right to adequate compensation for mishandled luggage and loss of valuables during international air travel, beyond the minimal standards set by international conventions (like the Montreal Convention and IATA rules).China Eastern Airlines had argued that the complainant did not submit bills for the lost items. However, the commission emphasized the evidentiary value of the Property Irregularity Report (PIR), signed by both parties, and photographic evidence, making it clear that documentary purchase proof is not always essential if prima facie evidence of loss exists. Though the airline relied on Montreal Convention rules (20 USD per kg) and DGCA norms, the Commission clarified that these do not override a consumer’s right to seek full redress under Indian law if there’s proven negligence or deficiency in service.The ruling sends a strong message to airlines to, handle passenger baggage responsibly, set up efficient grievance redressal mechanisms, and acknowledge consumer rights beyond technical formalities or international caps.