Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/457/2007

M/s Ladha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air Deccan, - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjani Devi

20 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   22.08.2007

                                                                        Date of Order :   20.10.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.457/2007

FRIDAY THIS  20^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

M/s. Ladha,

W/o Sarvesan,

No.45, Viswas Kamal Apartments,

R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore,

Chennai – 4.                                                  Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.  Kingfisher Airlines Limited,

Rep. by its CEO Capt. Gopinath,

35/2, Cunninghjam Road,

(Opp. Canara Bank),

Bangalore 560 052.

 

2. Kingfisher Airlines Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

Domestic Terminal,

Airport, Meenambakkam,

Chennai 600 027.

 

3. Kingfisher Airlines Limited,

No.32, 92^nd Street, 18^th Avenue,

Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083.                 Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                :    M/s. J. Ranjani Devi & another       

Counsel for opposite parties           :    Mr. A. Palaniappan

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  she and her family travelled in the opposite party’s Airlines on 7.9.2006 with two checked in baggage’s.  When the complainant landed at Bangalore  they were shocked  to know that their two baggages were missing.   Immediately the complainant’s husband lodged a complaint to the opposite party’s staff at the Bangalore Airport.  But there is no proper response.   After two hours the complainant was informed that the opposite party is tracing the baggages and gave a Property Irregularity Report.  Even after repeated requests and demands the check in baggages were not traced out.      As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service  and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite parties are as follows:

The opposite parties denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.    As per Sec. 4(ii) in Sub section (4) is as follows:  

        “In Section 4 (ii) in sub-section (4) after the words “Second Schedule” the words “ as applicable to carriage by Air, nor being international carriage by air” shall be inserted.

        The Rule 22(2) (a) of the Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 prescribes the maximum limit of compensation against lost or damaged baggage @ 250  frances.    The relevant portion of the law is reproduced herein below:

          Clause 22 (2) (a) – In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 franc, per Kilogramme, unless the passenger or consigner has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires.  In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless the proves that sum is greater  than the passenger’s or consigner’s actual interest in delivery at destination.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties  and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2   marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

4.   The points for the consideration is:  

 Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for? 

 

 

5.  ON POINT : -

 

        Admittedly the complainant and his family travelled in the opposite party’s Airlines on 7.9.2006 with two checked in baggages.  When the complainant landed at Bangalore they were shocked  to know that their two baggages were found missing.   Immediately the complainant’s husband lodged a complaint to the opposite party’s staff at the Bangalore Airport.  But there is no proper response.   After two hours the complainant was informed that the opposite party is tracing the baggages and gave a Property Irregularity Report.  Even after repeated requests and demands the checked in baggages were not traced out.   The complainant contended that she kept various costly silk saree gold jewels etc. in the baggage.  But the complainant has not produced any list of articles in this case.   Further the complainant contended that she has purchased articles by daily use by spending Rs.62,000/- in order to attend family function of house warming ceremony.    The complainant claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of articles, mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/-.  But the complainant has not produced any bill or record  to prove the value of missing articles.

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that admittedly the complainant  two checked baggages were found lost during transit, even after substantial through search process of tracing out the articles.   The claim of the complainant is that she has kept valuable articles like  jewels  etc. kept inside the bag cannot be acceptable  because as per Sec. 4(ii) in Sub section (4) is as follows:

        “In Section 4 (ii) in sub-section (4) after the words “Second Schedule” the words “ as applicable to carriage by Air, nor being international carriage by air” shall be inserted.

          The Rule 22(2) (a) of the Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 prescribes the maximum limit of compensation against lost or damaged baggage @ 250  frances.    The relevant portion of the law is reproduced herein below:

          Clause 22 (2) (a) – In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 franc, per Kilogramme, unless the passenger or consigner has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires.  In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless the proves that sum is greater  than the passenger’s or consigner’s actual interest in delivery at destination.  

7.     The articles inside the baggages shall be duly informed to the opposite party authority and list should be enclosed.   In this case the complainant has not furnished any list even in this forum also the complainant miserably failed to submit the details and nature of articles and quantity of articles  and value of articles taken through checked in baggages.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that in such circumstances the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.450/- per k.g. as per the Carriage By Air Act 1972.   The complainant is entitled to total 30 k.g. for two baggages in domestic article.  Hence the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.13,500/- alone.    Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and imaginary.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1  to 3  are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,500/- and shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-  towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  to the complainant.

        In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1  to 3  are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,500/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand and five hundred only) and shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

            Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 20^th day  of  October  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 7.9.2006    - Copy of the boarding Pass issued by the opp. parties.

Ex.A2-               - Copy of the FIR.

Ex.A3- 2.11.2006  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4- 27.11.2006         - Copy of Postal Ack. Card.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -    

Ex.B1-               - Copy of the Notification in Carriage by Air act.

Ex.B2-               - Copy of the Amended Notification.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.