Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/1060

MS ANISHA RATHORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRITISH AIRWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

U B WAVIKAR

29 Jun 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/10/1060
(Arisen out of Order Dated 13/05/2010 in Case No. 360/08 of District Mumbai(Suburban))
 
1. MS ANISHA RATHORE
C/O CAPE GENIMI CONSULTING (I) PVT LTD SEP B/2 GODREJ INDUSTRIES COMPLEX EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. BRITISH AIRWAYS
CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI TERMINALS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TERMINALS 2-A SAHAR MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:
Ms.Rashmi Manne-Advocate for the appellant
......for the Appellant
 
Mr.M.Shirazi –Advocate @ Mr.Sandeep Goyal i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the respondent.
......for the Respondent
ORDER

Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Ms.Rashmi Manne-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.M.Shirazi –Advocate @ Mr.Sandeep Goyal i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the respondent.

This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 13/05/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.360/2008, Ms.Anisha Rathore v/s. British Airways, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban (‘forum’ in short).  It is a case of loss of check in baggage and not compensating the appellant/org.complainant to her expectation.  Forum awarded the compensation which was offered by the respondent i.e.`70,764/- ; however, not satisfied with the same, this appeal is preferred by the original complainant.

Heard finally at the stage of admission itself with consent of both the parties.

In the instant case, it is a case of respondent- British Airways that under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and Montreal convention for the loss of baggage where the contents are not declared, complainant would have entitled for compensation of US $ 20 per k.g. and, therefore, for admissible or permissible 32 k.g. respondent would have been liable to pay only 640 US dollars. Instead of that they offered to compensate US $ 1000 equivalent to INR `70,764/- and, therefore, there is no reason to make any claim for enhancement of the claim of compensation.

We asked Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant on which basis she is justifying her claim for compensation claimed.  She failed to show any justification except stating that she was required to spend for her stay at the destination. We are unable to agree because when a particular fixed amount is to be granted by way of compensation and which is in fact awarded in the instant case, perhaps more than what is permissible, therefore, it is not a case for any enhancement to the compensation awarded.  Admittedly, respondent has not filed any appeal against the impugned order.  Holding accordingly, we pass the following order:-

 

                                      ORDER

Appeal stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced on 29th June, 2011.

 

 

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.