cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 11th day of February 2013.
Filed on : 11/11/2011
Present :
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 631/2011
Between
Shameer. A.S., : Complainant
Ambalaveettil house, (By Adv. Jeemon P. Abraham
Kuzhuppillikara P.O., 42/2421, Thaliath Building, St.
Kattoor, Thrissur, Benedict road, Kochi-682 018)
Pin 680 704,
res. at House. No. 10,
Block No. 2, Road No. 23,
Kaifaw, Kuwait,
rep. by Power of Attorney
Biju S/o. Raman, Pattath house,
Kizupullikara P.O., Thrissur dist.
And
Airport Officer, : Opposite party
Kuwait Airways Corporation, (By Adv. Prakash P. George
Baggage Services, Praksh & Associates, 2nd
Cochin International Airport Ltd., Floor, Viva il Building,
Cochin-683 111. K.K. Padmanabhan Road,
(South End) Cochin-18)
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The facts leading to the present complaint are the following:
Complainant is the power of Attorney holder of the man who travelled in Kuwait Aairways from Kuwait to Kochi on 13-09-2010. His baggage contained several items of valuable goods approximately weighing 22 KGS. The said baggage was found missing when he disembarked at Nedumbassery Airport at Kochi. When he reported the matter to the Airlines Authorities, they issued a Forum to be filled and forwarded within a few days. When it was done on 25-09-2010, the reply was not encouraging the baggage was lost due to the irresponsible and negligent act of the opposite party. Hence this complaint seeking several reliefs.
2. Opposite party filed version disowning their liability in the matter. They too admit that the baggage is missing not withstanding their sincere efforts to trace out the same. They take up the plea that they are not answerable for the lost goods purported to have been contained in the baggage as no declaration was made as to the contents at the boarding point. Also they take refuge on the contention that 15 kg was the maximum permissible limit to be transported without seeking special permission. They admit their liability to that extent under Carriage by Air Act. The complainant is taking in corsistent stands as to the quantum of damages as he is not certain of the contents of the baggage. Hence it is prayed that this complaint deserves dismissal with cost.
3. Power of attorney holder for complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Version alone was filed on behalf of opposite party. Both the counsel were heard.
4. The following points emerge for resolution.
i. What is the law applicable in this case to determine the
quantum of damages?
ii. What are the reliefs allowable in this case?
5. Points (i) & (ii). Both the parties are on consensus regarding the loss of baggage in transit from Kuwait to Kochi. Also it is admitted that there was no declaration of contents of the baggage at the boarding point. We have to commence our discussion on the premise that the baggage was weighing 22 kg and we cannot go by the contentions of the opposite party that 15 k.g. is the permissible limit under law since the contention has not be further substantiated by any material in support. We think in this case Rule 22 (2) (a) of carriage by Air Act is applicable since the facts squarely falls within the purview of the said provision. Admittedly there was no special declaration as provided in the rule. The rule stipulates that 20 US dollars is the maximum liability per kilogram that can be imposed against the negligent airlines. On the other hand, clause 25 of the Act can be invoked in cases where it was proved that the damage was caused from the act or omission on the part of the carrier or its servants. In the instant case, complainant has not been successful in proving the act or omission of negligence on the part of the opposite party. That being the fact, we are of the view that complainant is entitled to receive damages @ 20 US dollars/kilogram for 22 kilograms of luggage as claimed by the complainant.
6 Complainant was obviously depressed when he came to know that his baggage was missing. This was true even after the earnest efforts taken by the opposite party to trace it out. His demand of Rs. 10,000/- on the score of mental agony looks quite reasonable. Opposite party is also liable to pay cost of the proceedings in this Forum.
Consequently, the complaint stands allowed as follows:
i. Opposite party shall pay in Indian Currency the equivalent of
440 US dollars at the rate of exchange prevailing at the date
of payment along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 13-09-2010
till payment.
ii. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 10,000/- towards
compensation for mental agony suffered at the hands of
opposite party.
iii. Opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 11th day of February 2013.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Special Power of attorney
A2 : Copy of passport
A3 : Copy of baggage claim
questionnaire
A4 : Copy of letter
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 18-04-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
