BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH,                                                                                      MANGALORE

Dated this the 24^thNovember 2016

PRESENT

        SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D    :   HON BLE PRESIDENT

         SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR                 :   MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.223/2013

(Admitted on 24.08.2013)

D. Sudhakar Rao,

Aged 58 years,

S/o Late D Shridhar Rao,

r/a Sri AnanthaKrupa, Flat No.007,

Bharathi Nagar, Bejai,

Mangalore  4.

                                              ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri KSB)

VERSUS

1. Managing Director,

    M/s Air India Express,

    Air India Building, Nariman Point,

    Mumabi  400021.

2. The Manager,

    M/s Air India Express,

    Airlines House, Hathill,

    Lalbagh, Mangalore  3.

                                        …..........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 & No.2: Sri. AN)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain reliefs. 

      The brief facts of the case are as under:

The admitted facts are that the complainant by purchasing air ticket travelled from Delhi to Mangalore on 1.6.2013 and while so travelling all the 6 bags were entrusted to the staff of Aircraft at the point of check-in at Delhi Airport. On reaching Mangalore one bag was not delivered to the complainant and was found missing.  Inspite of assurance of opposite party the bag was not delivered to the complainant.  The complaint was lodged with the appropriate authorised by complainant.

Further contention of complainant is despite he contacting opposite party No.2 in Mangalore several items they failed to give explanation.  Even to a letter dated 17.06.2013 to opposite party No.1 there was no response.   Contending that this 15 items were in the bag valued at Rs.15,000/ directing the opposite party to pay a sum with interest at 18% and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and tension and cost.

II.     Opposite party further contend that all efforts were made for tracing out through tracing system.  It was only an irregularity.  In the missing report of complainant there is mention of only clothes and items No.1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 do not come under the connotation of clothes.  As per the provisions of the international conventions as the baggage was not traceable the opposite parties disbursed a cheque for Rs.5,852/ drawn on Corporation Bank, Mangalore accepted by the complainant under protect and enchased. There is neither deficiency nor tension hence opposite parties are not liable of any of the claims.

          3. In support of the above complainant Mr. D. Sudhakar Rao filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex C1 to C3 detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Nagesh Shetty, (RW1) Area Manager, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents.

III.     In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainantisentitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:         

Point No. (i): Affirmative

Point No. (ii): Affirmative

Point No. (ii): As per final Order

                                                                                       REASONS

IV.      POINTS No. (i) & (ii):In this case the complainant entrusted to opposite party his baggage at Delhi Airport was not delivered to Mangalore Airport is undisputed.  The entire claim of complainant of Rs.15,000/ was not paid over by opposite parties is also undisputed.  Hence there is a dispute as defined under the C P Act. Hence Answer point No.1 is in the affirmative.

2. The loss of the baggage of complainant is not disputed by opposite party.  As to the claim of opposite party not mentioning certain items as detailed in the written version amongst the 15 items listed in the complainant the answer to interrogatories No.2 of complainant that there is no provision to provide detail list of items in the property irregularity report which must even failed soon after finding non availability of baggage considering complainant had other baggages as well.

In the answer provided to affidavit interrogatories filed on opponents it was mentioned by Nagesh Shetty, Area Manager of opposite party in India and Civil Aviation Notification No.AV11012/5/79A dated 22.08.1989, 26.03.1992 and amended on 21.01.1998 liability limited to Rs.450/ per Kg of baggage.  As such the actual damages that should have paid only Rs.2,250/ but paid Rs.5,825/ as per Non International Carriage by Air Act 1972.

It is not be the case of complainant that at the time of checking with the bag was told to opposite party at the Delhi he had declared the nature of the goods and value of the goods. In the written arguments notes the learned counsel for complainant has referred to Rule 4 of the First Schedule to the carriage by Air Act.  As seen from this the luggage tickets that shall be shown to the passenger shall be in duplicate one to be given to the passenger and other of the carriage and that it shall contain the statement as per 22(2) that the carriage as subject to the rules relating to liability contained in this Schedule.  But in the case on hand it is not the case of opposite parties that such a declaration was made to the complainant.  As seen from the ticket issued to complainant the check in tickets does not contain any such condition.  As such the Rule referred by opponent are not applicable.  Hence we are of the opinion that the opposite party are liable to pay the value of the Articles that were lost to complainant while in the custody of opposite parties that the bag contents assessed by complainant at Rs.15,000/.  Hence opposite party should be directed to pay the difference in the amount after deducting the amount already paid to the complainant interest at 9% from the date 17.06.2013 of notice Ex.C3.  Opponents also be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards inconvenience and Advocate fee fixed at Rs. 2,000/ and also cost of the complainant.  Hence answer point No.2 in the affirmative.

POINTS No. (ii): Wherefore the following order:

ORDER

     The complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/ less Rs. 5,852/ the amount to the complainant with interest at 9% from the date 17.06.2013 of notice Ex.C3.  Opponents also directed to pay a sum towards inconvenience and mental agony at Rs.10,000/ and also cost of the complainant.  Advocate fee fixed at Rs.2,000/.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 6 Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronouncedin the open court on this the 24^th November 2016)

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 Mr. D Sudhakar Rao

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1: 01.06.2013 Air Ticket with baggage tags enclosed

Ex C2: 07.06.2013 Property Irregularity Report

Ex C3: 17.06.2013 Letter to Opposite Parties

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1:  Mr.Nagesh Shetty, Area Manager

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

No.1: Searching Reports Pages 1305447 to 13054470 (Total 33)

No.2: 11.07.2013 Copy of the cheque issued to the complainant Vide cheque No.3141404 drawn on M/s Corporation Bank

No.3: List of telex messages sent No.4: Ticket details

Dated:  24.11.2016                             PRESIDENT