KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.356/11 & 570/11
COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2012
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
APPEAL NO.356/11
The Station Manager,
Air India, Airport,
Thiruvananthapuram. -- APPELLANT
(by Adv.V.K.Mohankumar)
Vs.
K.N.Silvester
S/o Keleese,
Vijaya Sadanam, -- RESPONDENT
Uchakada P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram.
APPEAL NO.570/11
K.N.Silvester
S/o Keleese,
Vijaya Sadanam, -- APPELLANT
Uchakada P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(by Adv.K.N.Justin)
Vs.
The Manager,
Air India Cargo Complex, -- RESPONDENT
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.V.K.Mohankumar)
COMMON JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
The appellant in 356/11 is the opposite party and the appellant in A.570/11 is the complainant in OP.49/02 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants in A.356/11/Air India Cargo is under orders to pay an amount of equalent to 300 US $ and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards costs..
2.. The case of the complainant is that he had entrusted with Air India a consignment from Kuwait on 14.5.2000 for transporting the same from Kuwait to Trivandrum. The consignment weighed 168 kg; and a sum of Kuwait Dinar, 117 and Fills 750 was paid towards the transportation charges of the un-accompanied baggage. On 13.6.2000, when the complainant came to collect baggage, it was found that the same is kept in an open yard. When it was opened, it was found that the entire materials are in a dilapidated condition soaked with water. A complaint was lodged before the Customs Clarence Office and the complainant was assured an adequate compensation by the staff of the opposite party. There was no response further. Thereafter, on 16.6.2000, he sent a letter by Fax demanding compensation. The hard disk of the PC and the CD. Drive that was in the packet was not functioning. A high quality TV was also spoiled. The other valuable items in the bag including the wedding suit of the complainant and many albums of the family were destroyed. He claimed a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- as compensation with interest at 12%.
3. The opposite parties have filed version pointing out that the complainant did not turn up for taking delivery of the Cargo although intimation of the arrival of the Cargo on 31.5.2000 was given. He took delivery only on 13.6.2000. It is contented that once the cargo is brought to the Airport of destination the Cargo is taken over by the Customs Department and hence the opposite parties have no liability thereafter. The cargo complex is not under the control of Air India. It is under the control of the Customs Department. It is also contended that the damages claimed is exorbitant.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective sides and Exts.P1 to P5 and C1.
5. Exts.C1 is the report of the Commissioner who inspected the articles subsequently. In Exts.C1, it is seen that the Commissioner has reported that the computer 486 machine labeled “discovery” was not booting. The monitor was working. The hard disk was replaced in another computer and it was found that the contents of the hard disk were not recoverable. He has reported that TV is in working condition. The repair charges of the computer cannot be estimated as the particular computer is not available in the market. The defect in the TV was found rectified. He has also mentioned that the defects happened due to the impact and oozing of water inside the above item.
6. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant/opposite party, the damages sustained to the other items except the computer could not be ascertained as the complainant has not made the Commissioner to inspect the above items as can be seen from the list attached to the complaint. The other items included different types of sweets, children’s dresses and wedding suit. He has also paid a sum of 117.750 Kuwait Dinars for cargo charges. Hence, only the damage with respect to the computer stands proved. With respect to defects of the TV he has produced Ext.P1 repair bill amounting to Rs.3000/-.
7. The contention that the opposite party has no responsibility once the cargo has landed at the Airport cannot be approved as it is the opposite party that was entrusted of the cargo and received the charges for the same. Ext.B1, the copy of the delivery order would show that the cargo landed on 31.5.2000 and it was cleared only on 13.5.2000. There is no explanation in this regard from the complainant. In the above circumstances, the Forum has ordered to pay the sum ordered equivalent to 300 U.S Dollars and further a compensation of Rs.5000/-. We find that the amount ordered to be paid cannot be said to be excessive especially, in view of the fact that 117.750 Kuwait Dinar were paid by the complainant for transportation of the cargo.
8. Although, the complainant has filed Appeal 570/11 seeking enhanced compensation we find that the complainant has not adduced proper evidence in this regard. The delivery taken was not an open delivery. The Commission report is also not helpful. As pointed out by the Forum the Commission was taken after 3 years. In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for enhancing the amount of compensation.
9. In the result, the order of the Forum is sustained. Both appeals are dismissed.
10. Opposite parties will make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 31.1.2012, the date of this order.
Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
