BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 75/2007 Filed on 16.03.2007

Dated : 31.08.2011

Complainant :

Hameed Nazer, Padinjattathil Veedu, Thazham Middle, Chathannoor, Kollam now residing at Chungasserril Veedu, Edakkulangara P.O, Karunagappally, Kollam.

(By adv. K. Radhamani)

Opposite parties :

1. Air India Manager, Air India, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Officer-in-charge, Baggage Section, Air India, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S. Reghukumar)

This O.P having been heard on 11.07.2011, the Forum on 31.08.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant travelled by Air India flight No. AI 916 on 21.02.2007 from Dammam Airport to Thiruvananthapuram Airport, that complainant carried 2 baggages with him, that baggage charge was also effected from the complainant by taking over two bags from the complainant's custody, after affixing special tag on it and part of the same tag was handed over to complainant, that when complainant reached Thiruvananthapuram Airport one of the baggages having slip No. 0098683795 was found missing. The same was reported to the opposite party and the lost baggage could not be traced out, that thereafter complainant lodged a petition to 2^nd opposite party, the officer-in-charge of baggage section, Air India. Complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 1,50,918/- due to the loss of baggage caused due to negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,918/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as costs.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending interalia that complainant was a passenger of Air India by AI 916/21 fe 1307 DMM/TVM from Dammam to Thiruvananthapuram, that on arrival he reported missing of his one baggage, that complainant carried 2 baggages with him, that the weight of the 2 baggages was 36 kg, and the weight of the bag delivered was 21 kg, so the weight of the missing baggage was 15 kg, that on enquiry it was found that a similar type of carton had arrived on the arrival hall and it was tied with orange rope and the name labelled in the carton was Nadarajan Kutty, that it was presumed that complainant's baggage was wrongly taken by another passenger. Messages were sent to Dammam and other places, but the said baggage could not be traced out. Complainant was advised to put a claim for his missing baggage. He filled up the claim form and in it he mentioned only 3 items: Dress-all types, Electric........ and sweets. He did not mention anything about gold items. The allegation that opposite parties have taken negligent and indifferent attitude towards the complainant is not true because opposite party had taken every steps to trace out the baggage. Since there was no address on the left over baggage of Mr. Nadarajan Kutty messages were sent to Dammam requesting them to furnish the address. The said left over baggage was deposited with customs on 21.02.2007. The statement that the complainant sustained loss of Rs. 1,50,918/- is not true and there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,50,918/- towards sustained loss?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs?

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Ext. D1.

Points (i) to (iii):- There is no dispute on the point that complainant was a passenger of Air India travelled by AI 916 from Dammam to Thiruvananthapuram. There is no point in dispute that complainant carried 2 baggages with him. There is no point in dispute that one of the baggages was found missing. It has been the case of the complainant that complainant was served with 2 baggage slips having numbers 0098683794 and 0098683795. According to complainant one of the baggages having slip No. 0098683795 was missing. According to complainant the missing baggage consisted of 23 items as scheduled in the complaint worth Rs. 1,50,918/-. Admittedly, the missing baggage was not traced out. Complainant's evidence consisted of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4. PW1 has been cross examined by the opposite party. Ext. P1 is the copy of passport of the complainant. Ext. P2 is the copy of the air ticket. Ext. P3 is the copy of baggage tag. On perusal of Ext. P3 tag numbers are 0098683794 and 0098683795. It is recorded in Ext. P3 : Hameed/Naze Trivandru 2/36. Ext. P4 is a document issued by Air Customs. Opposite parties' evidence consisted of oral testimony of the opposite party DW1 and Ext. D1. Ext. D1 is the proforma of excess baggage ticket. The very case of the complainant is that lost baggage contained articles as scheduled in the complaint and the said articles' value comes to the tune of Rs. 1,50,918/-. Complainant never furnished any documents to show that the missing baggage contained such articles as scheduled in the complaint nor has complainant stated the weight of the baggages in the complaint. Admittedly, complainant was served with 2 baggages slips which definitely indicate that complainant carried with two baggages. According to opposite parties weight of the two baggages entrusted to opposite parties was 36 kg and the weight of the baggage delivered was 21 kg. There is no document to suggest the weight of each baggage furnished either by the complainant or by the opposite parties. On perusal of Ext. P3 it is seen that weight of the 2 baggages is 36 kg. As per the schedule appended in the complaint around 23 items are seen mentioned including gold rings, gold chain, mobile phone, DVD player etc. There is no material on record to show that complainant had disclosed the said articles contained in the lost baggage at the time of handing over the baggage to opposite party. In the complaint itself it is not seen mentioned that complainant has made any declaration in writing as regard to the contents of the baggage before the 1^st opposite party nor filed any material to show that he has paid supplementary charges to the carrier. It is further to be noted that the conditions of carriage which form the integral part of the contract between the airline and the passenger which would clearly mention that carriers will not be responsible for loss or damages of items in check-in-baggage such as jewellery, currency, important documents unless passenger emigrates special declaration as to the contents of the baggage at the time of check-in, for which additional charge would have to be paid by the passenger to the carrier. In the absence of any evidence in support of the declaration of the contents of the baggage and payment of supplementary charges we are of the opinion that opposite party is bound to pay as per the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 wherein the liability of the carrier is limited to 20 dollars per kg. In this case admittedly complainant entrusted 2 baggages, but weight of the each baggage is not separately mentioned. It is argued by the counsel for the complainant that opposite parties issued 2 tags to the customer with a title identification 2/36. According to complainant 2 tags indicate 2 baggages and one baggage consisted of 36 kg and altogether the weight of 2 baggage is 72 kg and hence according to complainant the weight of the lost baggage is 36 kg itself. In the cross examination of DW1 when a suggestion was put to him by complainant that the tag identification as 2/36 would suggest 72 kg, DW1 denied the same. A perusal of Ext. P3 reveals 2/36 which would indicate 2 baggages and total weight 36 kg. Opposite party has contended that the weight of 2 baggages was 36 kg and weight of the baggage delivered was 21 kg. So the weight of the missing baggage was 15 kg only. There is no document to show that the baggage delivered was of 21 kg. In this context we have to fix the weight of the missing baggage. In view of the available evidence on record we fix the weight of missing baggage as 20 kg, thereby complainant is entitled to get 400 US Dollar (20 US Dollars x 20 kg) from the opposite parties. In addition to that opposite party cannot escape from the liability to compensate the complainant as baggage entrusted by the complainant was not delivered to him by the opposite party. Non delivery of the entrusted baggage would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant a sum of 400 US Dollar (converted into rupees at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of passing this order) along with Rs. 5,000/- towards liability arising out of deficiency in service and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.

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 31^st day of August 2011.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 75/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Nazer Hameed

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of passport of the complainant

P2 - Copy of the Air Ticket

P3 - Copy of baggage tag.

P4 - Copy of the document issued by Air Customs.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - P. Vijayanunni

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Proforma of excess baggage ticket

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb