Date of Filing: 05/07/2011

        Date of Order: 16/09/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated: 16^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 1231 OF 2011

Arvind Jain,

Aged About 38 years,

S/o. Mr. Paras Jain,

No.38, 5^th Cross,

Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009.

Rep. by his Uncle Mr. Mahaveerchand)                                                Complainant.

-V/s-

British Airways,

Having its Local office at

502, 5^th Floor, Prestige Meridian,

M.G. Road, Bangalaore-560 001.

Rep. by Authorized Officer.                                                     Opposite party.

BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.19,020/-, are necessary:-

The complainant had come to the Bangalore Airport on 08.07.2009 with the tickets purchase for traveling from Bangalore to London in the aircraft of the opposite party.  He had brought two tickets which were strictly in accordance with the specifications given by the opposite party.  At the airport at Bangalore the personnel of the opposite party stated that check-in baggage is more than 23 kgs though in fact it was less than 23 kgs even then the complainant removed 2 kgs of MTR food from the said baggage and threw it to the dustbin therein.  Even then the opposite party stated it is more in weight and collected Rs.2,010/-.  Further the hand baggage is also of the approved size even then the opposite party demanded another Rs.2,010/- and collected it.  In the place where the cabin baggage has to be kept, in that place also the dimensions of the baggage were mentioned which was also shown to the opposite party.  Even then the opposite party refused.  The hand baggage went inside the place but the opposite party shouted at the complainant stating that “you cannot turn the baggage, you have to put it straight” and abused him.  Further at the time of issuing the boarding pass the personnel Mrs. Rubeena of the opposite party asked the complainant questions which were not asked by any personnel of any aircraft in which the complainant had travelled so for and also has to open up the baggage and removed the documents and show it, this has caused humiliation to the complainant at the Bangalore airport.  The personnel of the opposite party at London Airport said “well come to United Kingdom”.  Hence this complaint seeking refund of Rs.4,020/- illegally extracted amount, damages of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for harassing the complainant in peeping in to his personal document.

2.        In this case the notice has been served on the opposite party as on 02.08.2011.  In spite of that the opposite party failed to contest the proceedings till date.  Hence perused the records.

3.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the action of the opposite party is unfair trade practice/deficiency in service?
2. What order?

4.        Our findings on the above points are:-

            Point (A) & (B):As per the final order

For the following:-

REASONS

POINT (A) to (B):-

5.        Reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents produced by the complainant, it is established that the complainant was travelling in the airlines of the opposite party from Bangalore to London on 08.07.2009.  The complainant was allowed to carry a check in baggage and the hand baggage as per the specification and the complainant had the baggage with him filled with his material with approved weight.  Even then the opposite party refused to allow the hand baggage though the hand baggage entered the baggage place and it was according to specification and demanded Rs.2,010/- and also demanded and collected another sum of Rs.2,010/- stating that the check in baggage was weighting more though it was less in weight thus has harassed the complainant.  Further Ms. Rubeena asked the questions which were not relevant for the purpose of issuing the boarding pass and made the complainant to remove his personal documents and she peeped in to that, the documents which were not warranted and which is against the privacy of the complainant.  Hence under these circumstances the action of the opposite party is nothing but an unfair trade practice and harassment and caused mental agony to the complainant.  None of these statements of the complainant, which are corroborated by the documents, are denied by the opposite party.  There is nothing to disbelieve the same.  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.       The opposite party is directed to sum of Rs.15,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 08.07.2009 until payment.

3.       The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as costs of this litigation.

4.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

5.       Send a copy of this order to the complainant free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 16^th  Day of September 2011)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT