BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA No. 42 OF 2014 AGAINST CC No.775 OF 2011
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II,HYDERABAD
Between :
Mr. Rohit Raju Enduri,
S/o. Sanjeeva Raju Enduri,
Rep. by his G.P.A. Holder,
Bhoopal Raju Enduri,
S/o. Pentaiah Enduri,
R/o. H.No.9-80/3, Udayanagar Colony,
Bodduppal, R.R. District – 500039. …Appellant / Complainant
AND :
- Rajiv Gandhi International Airport,
Rep. by its Manager, Air India,
Shamshabad, R.R. District,
Hyderabad.
- Air India, Rep. by its Manager,
Air India Buildings,
1st Floor, Nariman Point,
MUMBAI – 400021.
- Air India, Rep. by its Manager,
Hill Forte Road, Haca Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500004. …Respondents / Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent / Opposite Parties : M/s. K.Srinivasa Murthy
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of December
Two thousand Sixteen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
The Appellant herein is the complainant and the Respondents are the opposite parties before the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad (for short “the District Forum”), in C.C.no.775/2011. By the impugned order dated 19.06.2013 the learned District Forum directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay US $ 250 and compensation of Rs.15,000/- with costs of Rs.3,000/-
2. In a nutshell the case of the complainant, before the District Forum, is that on 05.09.2010 he boarded Air India Flight no.AI141 at Hyderabad with two pieces of registered baggage to go to New York and that at the Boarding Gate the officials of the Airport have taken his rolling handbag and issued a release tag bearing no.IC100335 containing Gold ornaments, Diamond Jewellary, documents and cloths after due scanning and that when he reached JFK Airport, New York he found his rolling hand bag missing. His further case is that despite making complaint with the Air India, the said bag was neither traced nor the value of it’s contents were given by the Air India authorities causing him a loss of Rs.8,00,000/-.
3. The defence setup by the respondents herein before the District Forum, interalia, is that, no doubt the cabin baggage of the Appellant was retrieved at the Board Gate due to it’s odd size and a limited release tag was given to him and also a sling bag was provided to keep all the important material but the said bag was never scanned at the Airport. Further, the baggage of the Appellant was booked under no value declaration and that neither he did disclose the items kept in the bag nor declared their value and paid the required supplementary charges on such declaration. In the absence of no value declaration of the baggage, he is entitled to claim only on weight loss basis of the baggage under the guidelines of MONTREAL CONVENTION but cannot claim more than that. The maximum liability for loss of baggage is SDR 17 PER Kg., [Special Drawing Right – currency prescribed for Air lines settlement by International Monetary Fund]. Under the above said guidelines he can not claim value of the items, unless the higher value is declared and necessary charges are paid for the same. As per the Respondents, since the baggage was under no value declaration, there is no deficiency in service on their part and that as such the Appellant is not entitled for any relief.
4. After due enquiry and hearing the parties the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order which is now under challenge in the present appeal.
5. The contention of the Appellant, in brief, is that the District Forum has ignored the fact that the officials of the Respondent no.1 at the Airport, while he was boarding the flight on 05.09.2010, took his rolling hand bag containing Gold ornaments, Diamond Jewellary, documents and cloths by issuing a release tag bearing no.IC #10035 at the gate and that when it was found missing, the Appellant contacted the officials at JFK airport New York, number of times but without any proper response. Further, the District Forum ought to have seen that the Appellant was made to wait for 10 days to receive a response from the Air India but could not trace the missing bag and that as such he was constrained to issue a legal notice to them on 12.11.2010. The District Forum also wrongly held that the Appellant was entitled to the damages basing on actual weight loss of the baggage to the extent of 8 Kgs. only at the rate of USD Rs.20/- per Kg., under the Industry Practice and Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Though the Respondents never handed over any sling bag to the Appellant at the boarding point of the flight as alleged in their reply notice, it was accepted by the District Forum without any piece of evidence. For all these reasons, as per the Appellant, the impugned order is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that as such liable to be set aside/modified.
6. Perused the material evidence placed on record and the written arguments of the parties and heard both the learned counsel.
7. Now the point for consideration is that:-
Whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal both on facts and law and that as such liable to be set aside ?
- The Appellant travelled from Hyderabad to New York on 05.09.2010 in Flight No.AI 141 and lost his baggage at the destination is not in dispute. Unfortunately, the lost baggage could not be traced by the officials of the Air India on receipt of a complaint from him. As per the Appellant, the said baggage was containing valuables worth Rs.8,00,000/- and that at the Boarding Gate it was taken by the Airport officials after due scan by giving a release tag. Therefore, he has claimed value of the items by attributing deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Per contra, the Respondents have set up a defence to the effect that as the hand baggage of the Appellant was of odd size it was retrieved at the Boarding Gate by the officials of the Respondents and a sling bag was given to him to keep his valuables without any scanning of it and that he has neither disclosed the items kept in the bag nor paid any supplementary charges by furnishing their value in the shape of a declaration and that as such he is entitled for damages on weight loss basis for 8 Kgs only in view of the guidelines of the MONTREAL CONVENTION, which comes to approximately 208 US $. This is the only crux of the dispute.
9. It is pertinent to note that though the Appellant has given a list of alleged lost valuable items in his complaint, he did not file any proof to establish, prima-facie, their origin, that is to say, his acquiring of them either by purchase or otherwise. There is also no evidence to show that the bag containing alleged valuables was ever scanned at the Air port. It is an undisputed fact that he did not carry his lost baggage with him in the cabin but allowed it to be transported with his two other bags in the luggage Cabin/Cargo Holds. Had it contain any valuable items, as alleged by him, he had to provide a declaration of their value under the provisions of the Industry Practice and Carriage by Air Act, 1972. He did not do so, which is mandatory, and he cannot plead ignorance of the said legal provisions to claim an excuse. The Respondents, infact, did not dispute retrieval of his lost baggage at the Boarding Gate in view of it’s odd size, but specifically contended that a sling bag was given to the Appellant to keep his valuables, if any. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it can be concluded that the said bag was transported as no value declaration item and that as such he is entitled for damages only on the weight loss basis under the guidelines of MONTREAL CONVENTION. The Respondents have filed a copy of “General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage” under Ex.B1 issued by the National Aviation Company of India Limited and also a copy of “Revised Guidelines to Settle Mishandled Baggage Claims MONTREAL CONVENTION” under Ex.B2 issued by the Air India Ltd. As per clause 9.7 of Ex.B1 a passenger is bound to give a declaration of value for checked baggage in excess of the applicable liability limits by making payment of the applicable charges. The Appellant did not comply with this rule while claiming damages for the lost valuable items. Therefore, his loss has to be settled @ SDR 17 per Kg., as per the guidelines under Ex.B2. In view of these undisputed facts no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of the Respondents.
10. The Appellant, in support of his claim, has relied on the decision in, F.A.No.204/2008, between “M/s. Emirates Airlines And Dr. Rakesh Chopra” of the Hon’ble National Commission decided on 17.03.2008. In the said case one of the baggages of the complainant was misplaced and was not found and that his 2nd luggage was ripped open and some papers were removed. Therefore, the Air Lines were held liable for the negligence and mishandling the complainant’s luggage by awarding compensation. But the facts of the present case are entirely different. Therefore, the said decision, in our opinion, is not of much use to the Appellant. Even otherwise, it is to be seen that the learned District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- apart from damages of US $ 250 on account of loss of the Appellants’ bag and also cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/-. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the impugned order. The learned District Forum, in our opinion, has rightly appreciated the material evidence placed on record and came to a just conclusion by assigning convincing and sound reasoning basing on the legal aspect of the Act, 1972. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we concur with the findings and reliefs granted by the District Forum in toto. In this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order needs no interference and that as such the appeal must fail.
11. The point is thus answered against the Appellant.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt.28.12.2016
