SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

        Complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking to get an order directing  opposite parties to pay an amount  of Rs.2,37,000/- being the value of the articles kept in the baggage illegally  detained  by the OPs  together with Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation  and cost of the proceedings of the complaint.

   The case of the complainant  is that he was a passenger in  an Air India flight No.A1679 on 9/1/2019 from Mumbai to Mangalore.  He was on the way from flint airport to Mumbai via Chicago and Doha.  He was having two baggages  and he started the journey  from flint airport. It is submitted that  when he reached Mangalore, he was  informed by1^st  OP  that his one  bag was detained in Mumbai Airport , since it contains some electronic items and further they sought his permission to open the same.  For which he gave a reply through email stating that he has no objection in opening the baggage, in his presence, under the surveillance of cctv since it contains some valuable  things and money in US Dollars. It is submitted that he received the above said detained baggage at his residence as entrusted by one Prasanth, delivery  driver of vehicle No.KA19 MC 2610.   Complainant opened the bag in his presence and to his surprise it was seen that the bag was found torn and 2508 dollars kept in the envelops I in the  bag was missing.  Some other items like half sweater, power bank tite pants also found missing.  As such he sustained a total loss of money, equal to Indian money of Rs.2,37,000/-.  Moreover, he  suffered great mental agony due to their illegal and unwarranted act of detainer the baggage without any valid reason.  The complainant caused to issue a notice  dtd.14/1/2019 to the OPs, they received the notice but did give any reply.  Complainant has already filed a complaint  before the CDRF,Kozhikode as CC 178/2019, which was returned  to him by the form to submit  this  forum as per its order dtd.29/5/2019 . So there is  deficiency  in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, hence they are  liable to  compensate  Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant .  Hence the complaint.

      The defence of the OPs was that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fats and  there is no deficiency  in service or  unfair trade practice on the part of OPs,  OPs submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain  the complaint that the complainant had travelled from Mumbai to Mangalore and the bag was detained at Mumbai airport.  Further in the cause of action stated  in the complaint the branch office of the OPs  at Kozhikode has been specified.  Therefore no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this  Forum.  It is admitted that the complainant was a passenger  on the flight AI 679 from Mumbai to Mangalore and reached the Mangalore airport on 9/1/2019 and was travelling with  2 baggages with tag No.098347259 and 098347260. It is submitted that  when he reached Mangalore, he was  informed by1^st  OP  that his one  bag was detained in Mumbai Airport , since it contains some electronic items and further they sought his permission to open the same is incorrect and denied.  It is submitted that the terms and conditions of the airline as well as the baggage information available online clearly states the items that are not permitted to be carried on board during a flight journey.  If the officials at the airport during the baggage loading or during any other  point suspects a baggage to contain any restricted items the baggage will be detained at the concerned airports and will be released only  after verification of the same.  In the present case, the complainant upon arrival at Mangalore Air port reported that he had not received one of his baggage weighing 23 kgs with tag No.098347259.  Immediately a Property Irregularity Report as well as an Advise if Holding  under the reference No.IXEAI19364 was raised and communication was send to the officials of the 1^st OP at Mumbai Air port to trace out the baggage.  Subsequently, on the  same date, the AHL and PIR were modified by the officials of the Mumbai Airport stating “MIAL Detained”  .  Upon further enquiry  it was found that the baggage has been detained at the Mumbai air port as it was suspected to contain a security restricted item.  It is further submitted that as soon as the information regarding the detention of the baggage was received the officials approached the complainant for a consent letter so as to enable the officials at the Mumbai Airport to verify the baggage.  Subsequently a letter of consent dtd.9/1/2019 was issued  by the complainant authorizing the  Mumbai International Airport Security to open and  verify the baggage.  In the said consent letter the complainant had agreed to indemnify the OPs or its agents from all further claims in respect of loss or damage to the baggage.  He has also agreed that he has no further claim in this regard and that he shall not pursue any issue in this regard  in the future.  The said consent letter was forwarded to the officials at Mumbai Airport on 9/1/2019 itself.  Upon verification after the receipt of the c consent letter it was found that the baggage contained power bank which are prohibited items and that the detention was in consequence of the same.  There is no deficiency  in service or  unfair trade practice on their part hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

   Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and documents.  He was examined as PW1 and  the documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A6.  He was subjected to cross-examination for the OPs.

   The 1^st plea raised by the OPs is the present complaint is not maintainable before this commission.  It is submitted that this commission does not have territorial jurisdiction as per Consumer Protection Act 1986 as no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this commission.

   On perusal of records, the case of complainant is that his bag No.KA19MC 2610 detained by the Air port authorities at Bombay Air port has received by him at his residence and when opened the bag in the presence of one Prasanth driver of vehicle who delivered the bag, was found torn and Rs.2508 Dollars kept in the bag was missing.  Hence as per the Act, the  place where goods were delivered  would  have jurisdiction .  Hence the 1^st plea is answered in favour of the complainant.

   Another defence of OPs are that the terms and conditions of the airline as well as the baggage information available online clearly states the items that are not permitted to be carried on board during a flight journey.  If the officials at the airport during the baggage loading or during any other  point suspects a baggage to contain any restricted items the baggage will be detained at the concerned airports and will be released only  after verification of the same.  In the present case, the complainant upon arrival at Mangalore Air port reported that he had not received one of his baggage weighing 23 kgs with tag No.098347259.  Immediately a Property Irregularity Report as well as an Advise if Holding  under the reference No.IXEAI19364 was raised and communication was send to the officials of the 1^st OP at Mumbai Air port to trace out the baggage.  Subsequently, on the  same date, the AHL and PIR were modified by the officials of the Mumbai Airport stating “MIAL Detained”  .  Upon further enquiry  it was found that the baggage has been detained at the Mumbai air port as it was suspected to contain a security restricted item.  It is further submitted that as soon as the information regarding the detention of the baggage was received the officials approached the complainant for a consent letter so as to enable the officials at the Mumbai Airport to verify the baggage.  Subsequently a letter of consent dtd.9/1/2019 was issued  by the complainant authorizing the  Mumbai International Airport Security to open and  verify the baggage.  In the said consent letter the complainant had agreed to indemnify the OPs or its agents from all further claims in respect of loss or damage to the baggage.  He has also agreed that he has no further claim in this regard and that he shall not pursue any issue in this regard  in the future.  The said consent letter was forwarded to the officials at Mumbai Airport on 9/1/2019 itself.  Upon verification after the receipt of the  consent letter it was found that the baggage contained power bank which are prohibited items and that the detention was in consequence of the same. 

   Here complainant has failed to substantiate that the bag was found torn and further  he had purchased the items which were lost mentioned in the  complaint or no documents submitted to establish that those items and 2508 US dollars were inside the bag.  Complainant did not even try to examine Mr.Prasanth the delivery boy, driver of the vehicle to prove his case,  since OPs denied the said averments  of the complainant, the  onus of  proof  lies  upon the person who raised such contention.

   In view of the observations, here in above, since the complaint is lack of territorial jurisdiction  and also failed to substantiate the contention in the complaint, complaint stands dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Exts:

A1-Boarding pass

A2-Property Irregularity Report

A3- Letter issued by  delivery driver to the complainant(objection)

A4-copy of lawyer notice

A5-Acknowledgment card

A6-Order of the CDRF ,Kozhikode in CC/178/2019

PW1-Balakrishnan Nambiar-Complainant

Sd/                                                            Sd/                                                Sd/

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER                                           MEMBER

Ravi Susha                             Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                                  /forwarded by Order/

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR