Oman air

Thiruvananthapuram

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud

consumer case(CC) No. 192/2006

Swamy Dhasan Daniel
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

MD

Georgie

Sales Manager
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A
2. Smt. S.K.Sreela
3. Sri G. Sivaprasad


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 192/2006 Filed on 06/07/2006
Dated: 16..03..2009
Complainant:
Swamydhasan Daniel, S/o Swamydhasan, No.28/A/5, Arunachallapuram, Vickramasingapuram-P.O., Thirunelveli, Tamilnadu. Represented by his authorised Power of Attorney holder Mrs. Helen Grace Beaula W/o Swamydhasan Daniel
residing at No. 28/A/5, ..do..
(By Adv. C.V. Narayanan)
Opposite parties:
        1. Managing Director/Chairman, OMAN AIR, Mark Towers,
          Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.
        2. Sales Manager, OMAN AIR, District Office, Vellayambalam, Sasthamangalam-695 010.
        3. Georgie, MHB-Section, OMAN AIR, Terminal II, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 008.
(By Adv. A Abdul Kharim)
This O.P having been heard on 06..02..2009, the Forum on 16..03..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER


SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:


The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant was a passenger from Bahrain to Thiruvananthapuram by Flight No.WY 815, 816 of the opposite parties on 15/12/2005, that on arrival at Thiruvananthapuram it was found that two baggages were missing, that the matter of missing baggages were immediately reported to opposite parties, that opposite parties promised that the baggages would accompany with the traveller, that the opposite parties collected ticket fare and additional charge for baggages from the complainant, and that opposite parties not kept their promise of prompt delivery of baggages at the destination point at Thiruvananthapuram. The articles were kept in the baggages were lost which would amount to Rs. 20,30,780/-. There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant sent an advocate notice to the opposite parties along with claim form. But opposite parties did not redress the grievance. Hence this complaint to recover Rs.2,30,780/- towards price of articles of the lost baggages, Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigations.


2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the complainant was a passenger from Bahrain to Thiruvananthapuram in the Oman Air Flight, that the complainant has not paid any excess freight charges, that complainant has reported the loss of his baggages and has lodged a Property Irregularity Report with opposite parties. The total weight of the baggages was also noted as 30kg, and that opposite parties could not trace out the lost baggages inspite of world wide tracer messages for the same. Complainant claimed in the Baggage Claim Questionnaire that his lost baggage contained very valuable items with a view to obtain heavy and hefty claim. The weight of the baggage can only be 20kg or less going by the free baggage allowance. The complainant had not made any declaration of special interest in delivery at destination nor paid any supplementary charges. As per the provisions under Article 22(2) of 11 Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, in the absence of any such declaration, the maximum liability of the Airlines in the case of loss of baggage is statutorily limited to 20 US $ per kg. Opposite party had made all efforts to trace out the baggage. The fact was also intimated to the passenger. Opposite parties did not adopt any kind of unfair trade practice as alleged. There is no dereliction on duty on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


3. The points that arise for consideration are:


        1. Whether the complainant has reported the loss of baggage?
        2. Whether the weight of the lost baggage or value of its contents has been declared by the complainant?
        3. Whether there has been negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
        4. Reliefs and Costs?


In support of the complaint, Power of Attorney holder of the complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite parties did not file affidavit or documents.


4. Points (i) to (iv): Admittedly, complainant was a passenger from Bahrain to Thiruvananthapuram Via Muscat in the Oman Air Flight No.WY 815/816 of the opposite parties on 15/12/2005, and complainant had reported loss of his two baggages on arrival at Thiruvananthapuram. Submission by the complainant is that complainant had lodged a Property Irregularity Report (PIR) with opposite parties. Ext. P1 is the photocopy of the passenger ticket and baggage check. As per Ext.P1, name of passenger is Swamidhasan Daniel (complainant) date of issue is 15, December 2005, Ticket No.is 4910 5165 6110 135. Exts. P2 & P3 are copies of baggage identification tags bearing No. B5 391200, and B5 391201. Ext. P4 is the copy of Property Irregularity Report (PIR) for checked baggage. As per Ext.P4, total packets/weight of the checked baggages are 2/30. Ext.P5 is the copy of the letter dated 27/1/2006 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. The letter reads as under:


“We request to inform you that all our efforts to trace your baggage under tag numbers B5391200/B5391201 have failed. You are kindly requested to fill the Baggage Claim Questionnaire enclosed and send it back to us along with your Ticket jacket, Boarding cards, Baggage receipts and bills of the lost items for further processing of the claim”. Ext. P6 is the copy of Baggage Claim Questionnaire dated 16/2/2006. As per Ext.P6, total number of pieces checked is 2, and total weight of checked baggage is 48 ½ kg. Ext.P7 is the copy of letter issued by the Airport Manager to the Asst. Commissioner of Customer, Thiruvananthapuram Airport to issue a landing certificate to the complainant. Ext.P8 is the copy of advocate notice dated 17/2/2006 issued to opposite parties. Ext.P9 is the bill issued by Thirunelveli. Evidently on going from Exts. P4 to P7 complainant had reported the loss of baggage to opposite parties. It is pertinent to point out that as per Ext.P4 (PIR), total number of pieces/weight of checked baggage is 2/30. While as per Ext.P6 Baggage Claim Questionnaire, total number of pieces/weight of checked baggage is 2/48.5. There is discrepancy in the weight of loss of baggage as per Ext.P4 and P6. Evidently from Ext.P1, the free baggage allowance is for 20kg. Submission by the opposite parties is that for above 20kg complainant needs to pay excess baggage charge. No material on record to show that complainant had paid any excess baggage charge. Initial onus of proving the weight of loss of baggage would rest on the complainant. Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant has filed affidavit and has been cross examined by the opposite parties. As per Ext.P4 & P6 the weight of the loss of baggage would lie between 30kg and 48.5kg. Though complainant failed to furnish any material showing the payment of excess baggage charge to determine the weight of baggage, we fix the weight of loss of baggage as 30kg. Though complainant has pleaded loss of baggage due to negligence of opposite parties, complainant has never proved it. It is worthwhile to reproduce Rule 25 of the Carriage by Air Act which reads as under:


        1. “The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this schedule which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his willful misconduct or by such default on his part as in the opinion of the court equivalent to willful conduct.
        2. Similarly, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the damage is caused as aforesaid by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment".


Since complainant has never proved that the loss of baggage has occurred to him due to the negligence of the opposite parties Rule 25 of the Act is not applicable. Rule 22(2) of the Carriage by Air Act reads as under:


"In the carriage of registered luggage and of goods, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 Francs per kg, unless the consignor had made, at the time, when the package was handed over to the carrier a special declaration of the value at delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so required. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that sum is greater than the actual nature to consignor at delivery". So the relevent Rule which we have to consider is Sub Rule 2 of Rule 22 of the Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the complainant while entrusting the baggage to the opposite parties had not made any special declaration regarding the value of the contents of the luggage or paid any supplementary charge as comparable in the Act. The complainant therefore is entitled for compensation for 30kg. Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is proved. Complainant is entitled to 20 US $ per kg as compensation. Complainant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards compensation due to deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.


In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant 600 US $ (converted into Rupee at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of passing of this order) opposite parties shall also pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost. Opposite parties shall pay the said amounts within two months from the date of receipt of this order.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.[/FONT]


Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the16th day of March, 2009.


G. SIVAPRASAD
PRESIDENT.


BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.192/2006

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Devarajan, Karukatharayil, N.W. Thazhava, Kuthirappanthi, Kollam District.

    Opposite party :

    District Manager, Oman Air, Airport Office, Terminal II, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.

    ORDER

    The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant was a passenger in the Oman Air flight No. WY 1412 in Muscat-Thiruvananthapuram Sector on 12.09.2000, that on reaching Thiruvananthapuram Airport baggage under tag No. WYA 204970 was found missing, that the matter was informed to opposite party on the spot, that on 03.10.2000 complainant was informed by the opposite party that the said baggage was missed and could not be traced out despite best efforts vide letter dated 03.10.2003 and asked the complainant to file a claim, that the complainant submitted the claim and the contents of the baggage were also declared.


    The cost of the articles contained in the baggage was Rs. 65,000/-, that after continuous follow-up with the opposite party, opposite party settled the amount for Rs. 9,260/- which was not acceptable to the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 65,000/- towards the cost of the articles and Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation.

    Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the claim is hopelessly barred by limitation. The date of alleged loss of baggage was on 12th September 2000, whereas the complaint is seen filed on only 30.07.2003. Article 30(1) under Chapter III of the 2nd schedule to the Act provides that the right to compensation shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within 2 years from the date of arrival of the passenger at the destination. The right of action in this case had extinguished as early as 12th September 2002.


    Complainant was a passenger in the Oman Air flight on 12th September 2000, that the brief case sought to be carried inside the aircraft was not conforming to the cabin size and hence a hazard to safety and security and the same was checked by issuing a limited release tag. Opposite party without admitting any liability had offered a sum equivalent to 200 US Dollars which was however unreasonably refused by the complainant and opposite party did not maintain the same offer at any time thereafter and the same is withdrawn. The contents and value of the same as claimed in the complaint are not correct. There was no negligence or deficiency of service by the opposite party. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    The points that arise for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

    2. Whether the complainant has entrusted his baggage with the opposite party?

    3. Whether the complainant has declared the weight of the baggage or value of its contents?

    4. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get cost of articles and compensation?

    In support of the complaint, complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed proof affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.

    Points (i) to (v):- Admittedly, complainant was a passenger in the Oman Air flight No. WY 1412 in Muscat-Trivandrum Sector on 12th September 2000. It has been the case of the complainant that on reaching Thiruvananthapuram Baggage under Tag No. WYA 204970 was found missing, that the matter was informed to the opposite party on the spot, that on 03.10.2000, the complainant was informed by the opposite party that the said baggage was missed and could not be traced, that complainant was asked to file a claim in the prescribed format and submitted the claim accordingly. Ext. P1 is the letter dated 03.10.2000 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. As per Ext. P1 complainant was informed by the opposite party that the missing baggage should be treated as lost and complainant was requested to submit claims along with a copy of the ticket jacket with all supporting purchase bills, vouchers etc.


    if available in the prescribed format enclosed within 7 days from the date of receipt of Ext. P1 letter. Ext. P2 is the copy of baggage claim questionnaire furnished by the complainant dated 10.10.2000. As per Ext. P2, the lost baggage was unchecked and estimated weight of missing baggage is 15 kg. Ext. P3 is the letter dated August 2, 2001 issued by the opposite party to complainant informing him that a sum of USD 200 equivalent INR 9260/- has been sanctioned being compensation for the non-receipt of the retrieved hand baggage under Tag No. WYA 204970. As per Ext. P3, complainant was requested to collect the said sum from the opposite party against proper release of indemnity to the effect that no future claim will be made against the loss. Ext. P4 & P5 are two bills issued by Naga Al Hadeed Trade and Saif Mohammed Salih Al-Ismaily Traders. Ext. P6 is the arrival ticket.


    Opposite party resisted the complaint by submitting that the complaint is barred by limitation as stipulated under Article 30(1) of the Carriage by Air Act. As per Article 30(1) under chapter III of 2nd schedule, to the Act, the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within two years reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived or from the date of which the carriage stopped. In this case it is pertinent to point out that the date of alleged loss of baggage was on 12th September 2000. On the very same day the matter of loss of baggage was informed to opposite party. On 3rd October 2000 (Ext P1) opposite party informed the complainant that all their efforts to trace the baggage were failed and complainant was requested to submit his claim.


    Accordingly as per Ext. P2, dated 10.10.2000 Baggage Questionnaire is seen submitted and on August 2, 2001 opposite party, vide Ext. P3 letter a sum of US $ 200 equivalent INR 9260 has been sanctioned being compensation for non-receipt of the retrieved hand baggage. The present complaint is seen filed on 30.07.2003, which is within two years from the date of Ext. P3 letter. In view of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint is filed within time. Hence we find complaint is not barred by limitation. As per Ext. P3 the lost baggage is a hand baggage.


    The submission by the opposite party is that the briefcase sought to be carried inside the aircraft was not conforming the cabin size and hence it was hazard to the safety and security of the co-passengers and the aircraft, and hence the same was checked in by issuing a limited release tag. Complainant as per Ext. P2 has declared that subject claim is missing hand baggage. No material in evidence to show that complainant had declared the contents of the baggage or value of the contents in the said baggage while entrusting the baggage to opposite party. The onus of proving the contents of the said baggage or its value would rest on the complainant. Since opposite party had admitted the loss of baggage, complainant is entitled for compensation subject to liability limitation.


    If we examine the provisions of Carriage by Air Act 1976, there is limit placed on the liability of the carrier under which damages can be awarded at the US $ 20 per kg of the weight of the lost baggage. Opposite party, on confirmation of loss of baggage(briefcase), had offered a sum equivalent to 200 US $ by Ext. P3. The liability of the opposite party is determined by the provisions under Rule 22(2) of the second schedule of the Carriage by Air Act. Hence we need not consider other documents produced by the complainant. On going through complaint & version and evidence available on record, we find the above said offer by the opposite party is reasonable on the ground that Carrier's liability is limited.

    In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the complainant 200 US $ converted into rupee at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of passing of this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The parties are directed to bear and suffer their costs.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited January 2010
    Thiruvananthapuram

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud

    consumer case(CC) No. 547/2002

    Abdulla Moosa
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    Station Supervisor
    ...........Respondent(s)


    BEFORE:
    1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A
    2. Smt. S.K.Sreela
    3. Sri G. Sivaprasad


    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




    ORDER






    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

    VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.




    PRESENT

    SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

    SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

    SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER




    O.P. No. 547/2002 Filed on 26.12.2002

    Dated : 31.07.2009




    Complainant:

    Abdulla Moosa, residing at Asarimoola House, Hosangadi, Bangramanjeswar, Hosabettu Village, Kasargodu District.




    (By adv. Nemom V. Sanjeev)




    Opposite party:




    M/s Oman Air, Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Station Supervisor.




    (By adv. A. Abdul Kharim & Associates)







    This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 28.12.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.06.2009, the Forum on 31.07.2009 delivered the following:

    ORDER

    SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

    The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant was a passenger of opposite party's flight from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram on 01.01.2001, that the baggage weighing 43 kg was entrusted to the opposite party, that on reaching Thiruvananthapuram when the baggage reached the clearing point it was found that the contents of the baggage were damaged, that complainant reported the damage to the opposite party on the same day itself and that the opposite party clarified the damage and issued a property irregularity report. The value of the goods in baggage was Rs. 3,28,000/-, that complainant produced all the records and bills towards the value of the goods in the baggage, that the complainant purchased the goods in the baggage for 21050 dirhams equivalent to Rs. 3,28,000/-. Even after several requests opposite party had not given the value of goods nor taken any steps to compensate the complainant. Complainant issued legal notice claiming compensation to the opposite party. But opposite party sent a reply raising false and frivolous contentions. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 3,88,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% and cost of Rs. 3,000/-.

    Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant had not issued the statutory notice contemplated under Article 27(2) of the 2nd schedule to the Carriage by Air Act within the stipulated period of 7 days of alleged occurrence of damage. Complainant had checked in two baggages weighing 50 kg on his journey from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram on 01.01.2001 in opposite party's flight.

    The permissible free baggage allowance in the said sector was only 20 kg per passenger and the complainant failed to pay the excess baggage charges, that in the lawyer's notice dated 23.07.2001 sent by the complainant it was stated that the baggage was torn to pieces in the conveyor belt itself, thereby it is clear that the mishap occasioned in the airport after unloading and entrusting the baggage by the Airlines to the destination, that Airport Authority of India is a necessary party to the complaint and therefore complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Complainant had not made any declaration of interest in delivery at destination as contemplated under Article 22 of the 2nd schedule. Without admitting or acquiescing with any liability by the opposite party it is pointed out by the opposite party that the maximum liability of the opposite party for loss or damage of baggage is 20 US Dollar per kg only as per law. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    The points that arise for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainant has entrusted the baggage weighing 43 kg to opposite party?
    2. Whether the contents of the said baggage and its value were declared?
    3. Whether the articles in the said baggage was destroyed?
    4. Whether there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite party?
    5. Whether opposite party is liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant?

    In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed proof affidavit and Exts. D1 to D3 were marked.

    Points (i) to (v):- Admittedly, complainant was a passenger of the opposite party's flight from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram on 01.01.2001. It has been the case of the complainant that the baggage weighing 43 kg was entrusted to the opposite party, and that when the baggage reached the clearing point it was found that the contents of the baggage were damaged and that the value of the contents was Rs. 3,28,000/-. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite party weighted the said baggage having 43 kg and clarified the damage and issued a Property Irregularity Report (PIR), that even after several requests opposite party has not paid the value of goods nor taken steps to compensate the complainant. Ext. P1 is the copy of PIR. Ext. P2 is the copy of the bill issued by Flower Tailoring & Embroidery, New Pardha Shop, Dubai. Ext. P3 is the copy of acknowledgement card. Ext. P4 is the copy of the advocate notice addressed to opposite party. Ext. P5 is the postal receipt. Complainant did not furnish air ticket. According to opposite party, complainant had checked two baggages weighing 50 kg on his journey from Dubai-Thiruvananthapuram on 01.01.2001 in opposite party's flight, that the permissible free baggage allowances in the said sector was only 20 kg per passenger and the complainant failed to pay the excess baggage charges, and that complainant himself had admitted in paragraph 2 of the complaint that the baggage was torn to pieces in the conveyor belt itself, that the same was happened after unloading and entrusting the baggage by the opposite party to the destination and that the Airport Authority of India is a necessary party to the complainant. Opposite party submits, complainant had not made any special declaration of interest in delivery at destination as contemplated in Article 22 of the 2nd schedule to the Carriage by Air Act. Ext. D3 is the copy of the Baggage Claim Questionnaire. As per Ext. D3 Estimated weight of damaged baggage is 43 kg. It is to be pointed that as per Ext. D3 complainant himself admitted that he was not charged for excess baggage. Submission by the opposite party is that complainant has not made any special declaration with respect to the items carried in the damaged baggage or its value nor paid any supplementary charge as contemplated under the Carriage by Air Act. As per Ext. D3 with respect to the claim, complainant has mentioned three articles- i) 250 Yard material, ii) 24 pieces Scarpes and iii) 20 pieces Barka and the value of the said articles mentioned is 21050 Dhs. Ext. D2 is the original cash bill dated 31.12.2000 issued by the Flower Tailoring and Embroidery New Pardha Shop.

    As per Ext. D2 there are three claim amounts to 21050 Dhs. Ext. D1 is the letter of the complainant. As per Ext. D1, the articles were brought for orphans. Main thrust of argument advanced by opposite party was to the effect that the Ext. D2 bill itself is bogus when read along with Ext. D1 letter that the items were brought for the orphans and it is beyond the imagination and expectation that such costly materials were brought for the orphans. It is pertinent to point out that the complainant has not made any special declaration with respect to items carried in the baggage or its value nor paid any supplementary charge as contemplated under the Carriage by Air Act or conditions of ticket. Complainant has not furnished the Air Ticket.

    The complainant therefore is entitled for compensation subject to the maximum liability limitation as per law. A case is pleaded by the complainant for claiming compensation exceeding the limited liability of carrier, but the same is not proved by the complainant with cogent and clinching evidence. Though a case of negligence is pleaded, complainant has not proved that the baggage damaged was due to the wilful conduct of the opposite party. Hence Rule 25 of the Carriage by Air Act is not applicable here. Since there is plea of deficiency, the relevant rule which we have to consider is Rule 22 of the Act. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that the complainant while entrusting the baggage to the opposite party had not made any special declaration regarding the contents of the baggage, the value of the contents or paid any supplementary charge as comparable in the Carriage by Air Act. Taking into consideration of totality of circumstance, we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is granted the value of 20 kg, the permissible free baggage allowance. So complainant is entitled to only 20 US Dollars per kg as compensation.

    In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant 400 US dollars (20 dollars x 20 kg) converted into rupee at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of passing of this order. Opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost. The said amounts will carry interest at the rate of 12% if not paid within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of July 2009.
Sign In or Register to comment.