By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> Facts in brief:-<br /> 1. Complainant was a passenger from Riyadh to Calicut Airport in Economy class in Air India Flight No.I.A.828 on 07-12-2001. He entrusted opposite party his luggage weighing 59kgs which included one Hardboard box weighing 44kgs containing Videocon TV and another baggage of 15kgs which contained domestic articles worth Rs.1,00,270/-. He paid Rs.1,800/- as charges for excess baggage of 4kgs. On reaching Calicut Airport only the Hardboard box weighing 44kgs was delivered to him. The baggage weighing 15kgs was found missing. He preferred complaints to opposite party and also submitted baggage irregularity report. Opposite party has not delivered the missing baggage of 15kgs. Complainant alleges deficiency in service and prays for payment of Rs.1,00,270/- being the value of articles inside the missing baggage of 15kgs and for compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with costs. <br /> 2. Both opposite parties have filed a joint version.. Opposite party admits that complainant was a passenger from Riyadh to Calicut in Economy Class in Air India Flight A1-828 on 07-12-2001. His ticket number was 098 4421 400187. Opposite party denies that complainant was allowed to carry total weight of 59kgs. Opposite party admits that complainant had paid excess baggage charges for 4kgs. It is further submitted that economy passenger is not allowed to bring 59kgs of goods without paying excess baggage charges for 39kgs as the permissible free baggage limit is 20kgs. only. That opposite parties have already handed over 44kgs of goods contained in one carton. Opposite party seeks direction to the complainant to produce the passenger ticket jacket, excess baggage ticket and Landing Certificate in original in order to ascertain the contentions of the complainant. Opposite party denies that the baggage of 15kgs contained articles worth Rs.1,00,270/- and states that complainant is put to strict proof. That there was no failure on the part of opposite parties to meet the obligations and there was no deficiency in service. Complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs.<br /> 3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed on behalf of complainant by the power of attorney holder of the complainant. Exts.A1 to A6 marked for complainant. Opposite party has filed affidavit. No documents marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> 4. Points for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.<br /> (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> Undisputedly complainant was a passenger in flight No.A1 828 from Riyadh to Calicut Airport on 07-12-2001. The case of the complainant as averred in the complaint is that he carried with him 59kgs of total luggage which was in two pieces. One was a hardboard box weighing 44kgs which contained a Videocon TV and another was a baggage of 15kgs which contained domestic articles worth Rs.1,00,270/- . It is his case that though he entrusted opposite party both these baggages for carriage by the same flight, on reaching Calicut Airport only the Hardboard box weighing 44kgs was delivered to him. The baggage weighing 15kgs was found missing. He also contends to have paid excess baggage fare for 4kgs which is admitted by opposite party.<br /> 6. The complaint is resisted by opposite party who totally denies that the complainant was allowed to carry luggage of 59kgs. It is submitted that the permissible limit of luggage for an economy passenger is 20kg. Complainant has paid excess baggage charges only for 44kgs. According to opposite party when the baggage of 44kgs was delivered to the complainant their liability as a carrier has ceased and there is no deficiency in service.<br /> 7. It is vehemently denied by opposite party that complainant carried a total baggage of 59kgs as averred in the complaint. Therefore the burden rests upon the complainant to prove exactly how much weight of baggage he entrusted for carriage to opposite party and what was the total weight of baggage lost if any.<br /> 8. Complainant relies upon Ext.A1 which is the photocopy of the flight ticket. In this the total weight of baggage carried by complainant is only 44kgs. Ext.a2 is the original excess baggage ticket . In Ext.A2 excess charges are paid only for 4kgs. Ext.A4 is the original baggage Landing Certificate. In column 9 of Ext.A4 the query to number of package entrusted with opposite party is answered as 'one bag'. Thus the materials placed before us would show that complainant has entrusted to opposite party only one bag weighing 44kgs. for which he paid excess baggage charges of 4kgs. In cases of ammesty fare tickets usually the allowable weight of baggage for a passenger is 40kgs. The case of the complainant in the affidavit is entirely different. Complainant affirms in para 3 of the afidavit that he entrusted two boxes and one bag to opposite party for carriage by air. It is further affirmed that one box weighted 59kgs and another box weighed 44kgs and the bag weighed 15kgs. If the affirmation in the affidavit is tobe taken into consideration, the complainant entrusted a total weight of 108 kgs of baggage (59 + 44 + 15) to opposite aprty and he lost 15 kgs. of baggage. Thus the evidence tendered by affidavit shows a total departure from the averments in complaint. The documents furnished do not substantiate either of these contentions. These inconsistant statements of the complainant together with the absence of materials to prove that he entrusted a separate baggage weighing 15kgs. to opposite party does not inspire confidence with us to hold that the case of the complainant is believable. For these reasons we are able to conclude that complainant has failed to establish and prove that he was carrying 15 kgs of luggage which he entrusted to opposite party for carriage by air and that it was lost in transit. We find that complainant has failed to establish a case in his favour.<br /> 9. In the result, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 28th day of October, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A6<br /> Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Flight Ticket Riyadh Airport to Calicut Airport. <br /> Ext.A2 : Original excess baggage ticket received from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A3 : Economy Class Boarding Pass received from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A4 : Original Baggage Landing Certificate received from opposite party<br /> to complainant.<br /> Ext.A5 : Property Irregularity report received from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A6 : Claim letter with passenger property questionaire sent by complainant <br /> to opposite party.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />