By Smt. Ayishakutty, Member

1. Complainant was working as a Crain Operator in Faisal Muhammad Quathani and sons company at Al-Khobar,KSA since 2002 with a salary of Rs 50000. He came down to his native place Feroke in Malppuram District on 6/3/2009 for sixty days leave and to rejoin his job on 9/5/2009. on 6/5/2009 at 4 am he reached at the Calicut Air Port for his return journey. He took the boarding pass and proceeded to the security check up. While he put on his suit case for security checkup, the personals in charge required to affix the "check in sticker" on the wallet against the normal procedures in his experience. While he come back with in two minutes, the suitcase put on for security check was missing. Immidiately complainant lodged a complaint to

   (2)

   the opposite parties. But they did not take any action to find out the lost suit case. Since they did not take pain to investigate the loss, the complainant had to cancel the journey because all the important documents for joining in the office were in the suitcase. The complaint was given within 10 minute. No flight was took off for journey. So the CC TV could have point out the culprit with in a very minimum time. The Suit case was containing the letter to rejoin for the job, Trade certificate, Experience Certificate, Certificate from Ideal Holistic Hospital and Research Centre for completing three months training in acupressure massage, Bachelor of Physio Therapy Certificate from Mangalore University and one thousand Seven hundred and fifty US Dollars: complainant sent lawyer notice to both opposite parties on 8/5/2009. On 11/5/2009 the baggage was received from opposite party, but on verification he found out that the baggage was completely damaged and partially opened. All the documents and 1750 US dollars were lost from the Suit Case. It was intimated to the delivering Agency and obtained seal amd signature. Since the experience certificate and other certificates were lost he is unable to get another job. Hence the complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

2. Complainant prays to direct opposite parties to give him Rs.4 lakh and 32 thousand towards

loss of income, Rs 2 lakhs towards the loss of his valuable documents and 1750 US dollars with 12 % interest along with cost of Rs 5000/-

3. Opposite party No 1 and opposite party No 2 filed separate version. Opposite party No 1 submitts that he is a public sector unit and it provides space and infrastructure for Air lines and Air line operators. The passengers are being handled by the concerned Airlines. So he has no control over other agencies like, customs, imigrations Air lines etc. Opposite party No 1 submits that as per the present security scenario all the hand bags like brief case, suitcase,Polythene bags, Jute bags even waist wallet to be tagged by the passengers before coming security check. For the convenience of passengers opposite party No 1 provides trays to keep this kind of wallet, ladies bag, mobile, purse and other small brief cases with tokken system. So every passengers can put their small items in the tray before screeming. If the complainant had come with proper tagging in his wallet he would have avoid this situation at security hold area. Opposite party No 1 further submits that there were three other flights operated at that time. There were about 400 passengers at SHA and few passengers were in the Air craft and the security checking was also going on. So it would not be simple to check all individual's belongings to find out the complainant's suitcase. In this situation the only hope to the passenger who took the suit case of complainant would hand

   over at the destination point only. Opposite party No 1 states that after receiving the complaint

   (3)

   from the complainant he had conducted a preliminary enquiry with CISF persons and Airlines agencies. After getting the permission from the Air Port Director of Calicut for revealing the CCTV which is purely meant for security purpose to point out the loss of baggage, he replayed the CCTV and found one of the passengers named Sasidharan C.M mistakenly left with complainants suitcase. Opposite party No 1 informed this to opposite party No 2 and advised to inform their counter part at aboard to return the suit case as soon as he handed over to them. Then opposite party informed the complainant to collect it from Air India Express baggage service. Opposite party No 1 also gave the name and address of the passenger who took and left with his brief case. The suit case was delivered to the complainant on 11/5/2009 with five days after missing. Therefore complainant has not suffered any loss or injury and he is not entitled any damages from opposite party No 1. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost of opposite party.

4. Opposite party denied all the averments except thos which are specifically admitted. He admits the booking of ticket for the journey from Calicut to Bahrain by Oman Air ways on 6/5/2009. The baggage was not tagged and nor entrusted with opposite party No 2 for carriage. Then later he lodged a complaint stating that his baggage was lost while he kept in the security counter. Opposite party No 2 states that complainant alone has to be blamed for his own negligence. He also denies the claim of compensation in various amounts. He submitts that in the light of the statutory provisions he is ready to pay to the complainant a sum equivalent to 400US Dollars for an amicable settlement even though he has no liability towards the complainant. But complainant is not come forward to accept this amount. So opposite party No 2 prays to dispose the complaint by taking consideration of the above facts and legal position to render justice.

    

   5. The power of Atorney of complainant filed Chief affidavit with documents as evidence. Ext A1 to A7 marked on the side of him. Opposite party No1 and No2 filed counter affidavit. Ext B1 to B6 marked on behalf of them. Powerof Atoney of the complainant was examined as Pw1, OP1 was examined as Dw1

6. Points for consideration

Whether opposite parties are deficient in their service. If so what is the relief and cost.

(4)

7. Both opposite parties admits the loss of the suitcase. But they condent that it was lost while it was under the custody and control of the complainant . Complainant left the suitcase at the

security area without care and so any inconvenience cause to him is due to his own negligence.But the loss was occured in the security area of the Air port is an admitted fact. This area is under the control of security officials who are working under the control of opposite parties. There is no chance for enter a third person to enter there without the permission of security staff. Opposite party states that the alleged suit case found out in Dubai Airport which was exchanged by another passenger boarded in Air India Express. It was happened due to the carelessness of the secuirty staff of the opposite parties. If they had taken any immidiate steps like announcement in the mike or replay the CCTV etc for regain the lost baggage it could have been found out with in a few minutes. Due to the loss of baggage complainant had to cancel his journey because the important documents for joining in the office was inside the alleged Suitcase. Therefore the lack of security alertness by the staff of opposite parties caused a great suffering and financial loss to the complainant. It amounts deficiency of service. Both opposite parties are liable and responsible to render proper service to the passengers.

8. Eventhough the lost suitcase was received to the complainant, the baggage was totally damaged and partially opened. He states that all the documents and 1750 US Dollars inside the baggage were lost . Complainant requested to pay him Rs. 4,32000 towards the loss of his job due to the loss of baggage. He could not travell or join on time and lost his income. He also prays Rs. 2 lakh for the loss of valuable certificate and 1750 US dollars with 12 % interest along with cost of Rs.5000. Ext. A2 the copy of the complaint sent to the opposite party No 1 on 6/5/2009 in which the complainant has not mentioned about the loss of 1750 US dollars. Complainant has written that he had lost his hand suit case at the security counter with all his valuable documents. Ext A4 another complaint to the manager of Air India in which the complainant wrote that his suit case was received even the delay of 6 days to recover the baggage itself is a huge loss for hime and he had to face for disciplinary actions from his company in KSA and there is a possible chance to loss his job also. He wrote in the letter A4 that the suit case found damaged and partially opened, but he has not mentioned the missing of documents and US dollars. Complainant has also not produced any documental evidence to prove the alligation, that the loss of his job, loss of US dollars and the loss of valuable documents . In the circumstances we cannot award compensation for such claims. It is admitted that complainant had suffered a heavy mental agony and financial loss due to the carelessness of opposite parties. Due to the loss of his baggage he cancelled his journey and so he could not join his job in time for which he deserves some amount of compensation

(5)

9 As per the rule 22(111)of 11 Schedule to the carriage by Air Act 1972 provides that any loss of any baggage taken care of by the passenger himself the maximum liability is limited to 5000 Franc equivalent to 400 US Dollars. Therefore complainant is entitled this amount from Opposite party No 2. The amount is calculated as Rs 19200. So we direct opposite party No 2 to pay an amount of Rs 19200 equivalent to 400 US Dollars along with cost of Rs 3000, and opposite party No 1 is directed to pay Rs 10,000 to the complainant as compensation for his mental agony and hardships met by him due to the loss of his baggage.

10. In the result the complaint partly allowed and opposite party No one is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10000/-(Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant and opposite party No 2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.19200/- along with cost of Rs 3000 (Rupees Three Thousand Only ) with in one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 23rd day of September, 2011.

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

(6)

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Pw1

Pw1 :Power of Attorney Holder of Complainant was examined as Pw1

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to Ext.A7

Ext.A1 :Power of Attorney of the complainant

Ext.A2 :Complaint filed by Complainant to Airport Manager dated 06.05.2009 (copy)

Ext. A3 :Lawyer Notice sent by Complainant dated 08.05.2009 (copy)

Ext.A4 :Complaint (copy) given complainant to Manager Air India on 11/5/2009

Ext.A5 :Reply of Lawyer Notice dated 18/5/2009

Ext. A6 :Reply of Lawyer Notice dated 02/6/09

Ext.A7(s) :News paper cutting dated 14/5/2009

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Dw1

Dw1 :Airport authority of India

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext. B1 to Ext.B6

Ext.B1 :Copy of complaint given by the complainant on 6/5/09

Ext.B2 :Copy of complaint dated 11/5/2009

Ext.B3 :Summer Schedule of 2009, Calicut International Airport.

Ext.B4 :Authorisation letter from C.M. Sasidharan for baggage collection dated 12/05/2009

Ext.B5 :Copy of passport of C.M.Sasidharan

Ext.B6 :Reply of lawyer notice by Op1 dated 18/5/2009

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER