Nitin Chainani & Anr. vs M/S. Airbnd India & 2 Ors.

The complainants/appellants booked accommodation at Lisbon during the period from 10.6.2019 to 14.6.2019 through respondent No.1. They paid a sum of Rs.35049.89 to respondent No.1 towards rent/stay charges. They also obtained a travel insurance from respondent Nos.2 & 3 for the period from 6.6.2019 to 5.6.2020 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs.

The case of the complainants/appellants is that on 12.6.2019, they went out for lunch leaving their goods inside the apartment provided to them and having locked the said apartment. The articles kept in the room included currency, wallets and headphones which had been locked in a suitcase. When they returned at about 6.45 p.m., the suitcase was found opened after breaking the locks. The wallets, cash and headphones kept in the suitcase were found stolen. The complainants were unable to get police help for three hours though later they managed to reach the police station and lodged a report. The host in whose apartment they were staying also reached the spot but was unable to give any help. The matter was reported by the complainants/appellants to the respondents. The insurer rejected the claim on the ground that there was no sign of forced entry or breaking. Claiming that there was no robbery, the insurer did not reimburse the complainants. Respondent No.1 however offered an amount of EURO 2674.26 to the complainants. The case of the complainants/appellants is that though the said amount was offered as a final settlement of the claim, they did not accept the offer and despite that, the aforesaid amount was unilaterally credited by respondent No.1 in their bank account, details of the bank account being already available with respondent No.1. The complainants/appellants, therefore, approached the concerned State Commission seeking the following reliefs :-

"i) The opposite party no. 1 to pay to the complainants a total sum of Rs.17,92,295.60/ (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Five and Paisa Sixty only), i.e. towards the stolen items and psychological counseling expenses and Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees Three Lakh only) towards travel costs to Lisbon and an additional interest @ 15% on the losses borne by the complainants from the date of the incident 12.06.2019;

ii) That all three opposite parties to pay a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only), jointly and severally, towards compensation for causing mental torture, agony, inconvenience and hardships to the Complainants;

iii) The Opposite party no. 2 be directed to pay $ 1000 to each of the Complainants i.e. a total $ 2000 [Rs.1,42,000/-(Rupees One Lac Forty Two Thousand only) towards emergency cash as per Section 16 of the above Policies and compensation of a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- (Rupees One Lac Eighteen Thousand only) for the loss of laptop as per Section 22 of the policies;

iv) Both the Opposite party No.1 and Opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only), jointly and severally, to the complainants towards litigation expenses.

The State Commission dismissed the consumer complaint at the stage of admission itself without notice to the respondents. The State Commission was of the view that the complainants had accepted the amount of EURO 2674.26 in full and final settlement of their claim and that is why, they had not refunded the said amount to respondent No.1. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the complainants/appellants are before this Commission.

Since the complaint was dismissed in limine without notice to the respondents, there is no necessity of issuing notice of this appeal to the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainants/appellants and have considered the record.

The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants has drawn my attention to the Email dated 2.2.2020 received from respondent No.1 as well as the response sent by the complainants to the aforesaid Email through their counsel on 4.2.2020. It is evident from a perusal of the Emails that though respondent No.1 had offered the amount of EURO 2674.26 as a final settlement of the claim, the said offer was not acceptable to the complainants. In view of the Emails sent by the complainants/appellants to respondent No.1 through their counsel on 4.2.2020, it would be difficult to say that the complainants had given up the rest of their claim and had accepted the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement of their claim.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the consumer complaint is remitted back to the State Commission to proceed with the same in accordance with law. The complainants/appellants shall appear before the State Commission on 17.12.2020. The appeal stands disposed of.