BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2018
Filed on : 05-08-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.455/2016
Between
Jacob Thomas, : Complainant
S/o. V. Thomas, (party-in-person)
Res. at Vanchipalathinkal house,
Kavumbhagom P.O., Thiruvalla,
Pathanamthitta-689 102.
And
Airport Manager, : Opposite party
Jet Airways (India) Ltd., (By Adv. Shyam Padman,
Cochin International Airport, Level – 1, Kesiya Towers,
Nedumbhassery, Opp. Union Steel House, Market
Cochi-683 111. Road, North End, Kombara, Kochi-18)
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant was a passenger from Dubai to Kochi on 21-03-2016 . He had checked in baggage, which was entrusted to the opposite party at Dubai to be delivered at Kochi. When the baggage reached at the destination at Kochin, it was found to be in damaged condition with many items missing from it. The matter was reported to the opposite party on 21-03-2016 by giving a Property Irregularity Report. On the next day the complainant had sent a list of missing items and its value including the cost of the baggage total` ling AED 8375 =Indian Rs. 1,50,750/-. As there was no reply to the opposites party, the complainant caused to issue a legal notice on 18-04-2016. There was willful negligence, carelessness and dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite party in causing damage to the baggage and consequential missing of the contents. The complainant is entitle to get compensation and costs. Hence the complaint.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party, who appeared an contested the matter by filing a version inter-alia as follows:
- The complainant alleged that the baggage was received in damaged condition. The baggage was handed the complainant on 21-03-2016 at Cochin International Airport . The complainant did not give any custom declaration in respect of the contents of the baggage and no special declaration as given in respect of any high value items at the time of checking in the aforesaid baggage at Dubai International Airport. The complainant did not pay any custom duty on the alleged goods carried.
The opposite party has no authority to open and check the baggage and therefore the opposite party is not aware of the contents of the baggage. It is significant to note that when the baggage was weighed at the Cochin Airport the weight of the baggage was equalant to that as declared at Dubai International Airport . Therefore, the allegation of pilferage is incorrect . the baggage was slightly damaged on one side of the corner due to the acts and omissions on the part of the ground handling agency entrusted by the Airport authorities in Cochin international airport. The complainant did not mention any of the item allegedly claimed to be missed at the time when Property Irregularity report prepared. There was no negligence deficiency in service OR Unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.
5. Following issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any
deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. Reliefs and costs
6. The evidence in this case consists of only the documents Exbts. A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party examined DW1 and Exbts. B1 and B2 were marked.
7.Issue No. i. The complainant did not adduce any oral evidence to support the allegation that certain articles were found missing from his baggage. He did not even file a proof affidavit in support of the allegation in the complaint. Exbt. A1 to A6 documents proves only admitted facts . Exbts. B1 and B2 would go to show that the opposite party had replied to the legal notice of the complainant . The complainant was not present to cross-examine DW1 who filed the proof affidavit supporting the case of the opposite party. The documents produced by the opposite party is not under challenge. We therefore find that the complainant did not prove the allegations raised in the complaint. The issue is therefore found against the complainant.
8. Issue No. ii. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of e-Ticket Itinerary/Receipt
A2 : Copy of property Irregularity
Report dt. 21-05-2016
A3 : Copy of letter
A4 : Postal receipt
A5 : A.D. Card
A6 : Copy of lawyer notice
dt. 18-04-2016
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
