IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari : Member Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this, the 23rd day of February, 2010. C.C.No.196/08 Vinodan Aringeth, S/o.Kannan, aged 37 years, Aringath House, Pattayam, Kolacherry, Kannur District. : Complainant (Rep.by Adv.T.V.Haridasan) - M/s.Air India Ltd.,
Hansalaya Building, 15 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110001. - The Airport Manager,
M/s.Air India Ltd., : Opposite Parties Karipur Airport, Calicut. - The Manager,
M/s.Air India Ltd., Fort light Complex, Kannur-1. (Rep.by MK Associates) O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of the items lost and compensation including cost of this proceedings. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are as follows: Complainant was a passenger in Air India Express flight No.IX-344 from Dubai to Kozhikode (Dep.0215 ARR-0735). The baggage of the passenger contains Drill machine, hand grinder, food articles like milk powder, cosmetics, chocolate, readymade garments, clothes, saris etc. worth of Rs.25,000/-. Complainant when reached on 22.07.08 at Kozhikode Airport the baggage was not found. The matter was reported to the Air India officials and officers on duty with the assistance of 2nd Opposite Party. One baggage was found abandoned with a tag of Complainant on it. Since the identity of the baggage was different Complainant disowned the baggage hence the baggage was opened in front of 2nd Opposite Party and customs officers on duty, found that it contains only waste papers etc. having 22 kg. Complaint was lodged with the 2nd Opposite Party. The malpractice happened only when the baggage reached at Kozhikode Air port. The tag was removed from the original baggage and replaced with bogus luggage. There was compulsion on the part of the authority to receive bogus luggage. It took 5 hours to lodge the dispute with 2nd Opposite Party and came out from terminal without any result. There misfortune happened due to the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant purchased these items to attend a marriage ceremony to be held on 27.0708 at his native place and since it lost due to the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party he constrained to purchase it again. He was suffered much hardship mentally and physically apart from financial loss. Complainant contacted several hours but there was no result. Hence this complaint. In pursuance of notice 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party entered and filed versions. 1st Opposite Party remained absent and subsequently set exparte. The brief contentions of 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party as follows: The Complainant traveled in the flight from Dubai to Calicut. He had checked in with one piece baggage with the tag No.XH 755480 weighing 27 kg. The allegation that the baggage contains one drill machine, grinder, food articles, saris etc. worth Rs.25,000/- is false. The baggage of the Complainant was found missing and one baggage was found abandoned with the tag on it and since the identity of the baggage was different the Complainant disowned the baggage and when baggage was opened in front of the 2nd Opposite party and customs officers on duty found that it contains only waste paper having 22 kg. etc. are totally false. The baggage checked in by the Complainant was in tact when it reached the Kozhikode Airport. It was taken by the Complainant in the same condition as it was checked in. But the best reason known to him was that the Complainant disowned, after opening it saying that it does not belong to him. However the arrival staff filled up a courtesy PIR and sent a message to Dubai seeking clarification, but no reply was received. It is not correct that Opposite Party has assured a speedy recovery of baggage. Complainant contacted at the office of the Air India at Dubai and contacted Opposite Party several times etc. are false. Opposite Party denies all the material allegations as that of compelled to take baggage, spent about 5 hours to lodge the disputes, that the tag was removed from the signal baggage and food with bogus luggage etc. are false. The allegation that the Complainant purchased the items for marriage purpose and he again constrained to purchase those articles also is false. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings, the following issues have been taken for consideration. - Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A3, B1 and Ext.B2 Issue No.1 to 3 Admittedly the Complainant traveled in the flight of 1st Opposite Party on 22nd July 2008 from Dubai to Calicut. The case of the Complainant is that when he reached Kozhikode Air Port his baggage containing drill machine, hand grinder, food articles, saris, etc. worth of Rs.25,000/- was not found. The matter was reported and with the assistance of Opposite Party, one luggage was abandoned with a tag of Complainant on it. That bag was disowned by the Complainant since the identity of the baggage was different. The bag was opened in front of 2nd Opposite Party and customs officers and found that it contains on waste paper. Whereas the Opposite Party contented that the baggage checked in by the Complainant was intact when it reached the Kozhikode Airport and it was taken by the Complainant in the same condition as it was checked in. But Complainant disowned after opening it saying that it does not belong to him. However the staff filled up a courtesy PIR and sent a message to Dubai seeking clarification but no reply was received. Ext.A3 the photocopy of the report submitted by the Complainant before the Airport Manager on 25.07.08 shown that it consists of 18 items worth of Dns.2230. Complainant claims the alleged baggage contains the said items. But there is no evidence to show that the baggage in dispute actually contain the listed items in Ext.A3. Complainant has the case that he has purchased the items to attend the marriage ceremony. Complainant could have produced those bills before the Forum. He has also stated that he was constrained to spend more to meet the exigencies. Those receipts of new purchase could have been produced at least to show that he has purchased such items. It would have been helpful to understand the circumstantial facts that may lead to assume the way to reach the truth to certain extent whatever, may be the limitations. Though Ext.A3 contains 18 items it does not give any evidence to show that the disputed baggage contains those items. Ext.A2 shows that same bag with same tag received. Complainant did not properly explain what does it mean. Ext.A2 and B2 does not prove that the complainant’s actual baggage contains the items that ha s been shown in Ext.A3. PW1 in his cross examination deposed that tF«³ Dubai \n¶p book sNbvX km[-\-§Ä F´m-sW¶p tF«³ ]dª And-bn-¸-ÃmsX F\n¡v t\cn-«-dn-hn-Ã. tF-«³ _p¡vsNbvX km[-\-§-fmtWm ChnsS F¯n-bXp F¶p tF-«\p am{Xta ]d-bm³ Ign-bp. PW1 also deposed that km[-\-§Ä F´m-bn-cp¶p F¶pT hne F´m-sW-¶pT tF-«³ ]dª And-hm-Wv. The evidence of PW1 cannot be relied upon to come into conclusion that the disputed baggage was actually contained the items listed in Ext.A3. It would thus appear that the Complainant has not substantiated his allegations. On perusal of the evidence on record and documents produced makes clear that complainant failed to establish that he has lost his baggage and the disputed baggage was contained the items of articles worth of Rs.25,000/- as alleged by the Complainant. Non examination of Complainant also weakened the case. In short there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, let in, by the Complainant to show that the Complainant has lost his baggage and the alleged baggage contained such articles listed by the Complainant worth of Rs.25,000/-. Thus we are of opinion that the Complainant miserably failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Hence the issues 1 to 3 are found against the Complainant. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, we made no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- sd/- Member Member President APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Itinerary receipt issued by OP A2.Copy of the property irregularity report Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Authorisation letter issued by OP B2. Copy of the property irregularity report Witness examined for the complainant PW1.A.Pramod Witness examined for the opposite party: DW1.R.Sukumar /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P, Member | HONORABLE GOPALAN.K, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE JESSY.M.D, Member | | 
