D.O.F. 25.09.2006
D.O.O. 02.01.2010
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010.
C.C.No.215/2006
Raviraj Poochali Thekkayil,
Thekkayil House,
Alavil P.O., Kannur.
Power of Attorney Holder - P.V. Rajeev, : Complainant
Puthanpurayil House,
Nr. Puzhathi Housing Colony,
(Rep. by Adv.R. Shyam Kumar)
1. M/s. Air India Limited, Hansalaya Building,
15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001
2. The Airport Manager,
M/s. Air India Limited,
Karipur Airport, Kozhikode : Opposite parties
3. The Manager, M/s. Air India Limited
Fort Light Complex, Kannur - 670001
(Rep. by Adv. M.K. Associates)
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 50,450 for the monetary loss and mental agony including compensation together the cost of the proceedings.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows. The complainant traveled on AIR INDIA EXPRESS flight IX 344 from Dubai to Kozhikode on 16th April, 2006. One piece of Complainant’s registered hand baggage was missed on arrival and the opposite party could not help to trace the same. It contained valuable articles worth of around ` 60,000 . This has put the complainant to untold mental agony and disappointment. The complainant thus noticed one unclaimed baggage in the conveyer belt almost similar to his missing baggage. On the said baggage in the conveyor belt almost similar to his missing baggage the passenger’s name was written as “Maniyeri” and the complainant reported the same to the staffs of opposite party particularly Miss. Shereen, who subsequently issued him the irregular baggage report/exchanged (mishandled) baggage report. The complainant had waited for a long time but was in vain. So he returned home giving his contact number and address to staff of the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter complainant enquired several times to the Airport staff of opposite party 2 and also 3rd opposite party. But there was no proper response. The complainant was not allowed even to talk properly. They were not interested to trace out the missing baggage. They did not give the complaint the address and details of said “Maniyeri” even after repeated request. The complainant has also contacted Mr. Narayanan employee of 2nd opposite party but it was of no use. Even after 12 days complainant has not received any information regarding the missing of baggage. So, the complainant lodged a complaint to 2nd opposite party. As there was no response from opposite parties he himself started enquiring the whereabouts of the said Maniyeri and learned that he is “Maniyeri” Sasidharan who is a resident of Badagara. After so much of effort with the intervention of police he had conceded that he was having the baggage and also admitted that he had removed some of the items from the baggage and that he would be replacing or selling the claim for the items taken by him. He at last with much reluctance handed over the baggage on 04.05.2006 which was damaged and tampered, with the knowledge of the opposite parties. Complainant suffered great economic loss which is detailed in the complaint. Complainant sent another complaint dated 06.05.2006 to opposite party 2 requesting them to settle the matter. Subsequently the complaint received a letter dated 18.05.2006 from opposite party 2 regretting the inconvenience caused to the complainant and offered to settle the issue for an amount of ` 750. Complainant could not accept the offer since complainant sustained a loss of ` 51,200. Subsequently complainant received the cheque for the said amount. Complainant received to cheque with protest since it is not at all adequate the actual loss of the complainant. This is a clear case where opposite parties are at fault and responsible for the loss of registered baggage of the complainant from their custody. Complainant send a lawyer notice dated 19.06.2006 calling upon to pay a sum of ` 50,450 including compensation. They sent reply dated 13.07.2006 to the counsel for the complainant which contains false averments. Hence this complaint.
Pursuant to the notice opposite parties appeared and filed version denying the main contentions of the complainant. The contents of the contentions of opposite party in brief are as follows : The complainant travelled on Air India Express Flight IX-344 from Dubai and landed at Kozhikode Airport on 16.04.2006. It is true that one piece of registered hand baggage was missed on his arrival. An identical bag was found unclaimed but the weight shown is incorrect. The baggage of the passengers usually put on conveyor belt. So the complainant’s bag must have been wrongly picked up by some other person whose luggage on which the tag shown the name “Maniyeri”. There is absolutely no deficiency of service or negligence on the side of the opposite party. Usually the baggage missing happen mainly due to the careless attitude of passengers only. In this case after the property irregularity report was filled up by the complainant, tracing messages were send and all efforts were taken to trace out the missing baggage by the opposite party. Later it is seen that the complainant himself found the contact address of Mr. Maniyeri Sasidharan, and Maniyeri Sasidharan delivered the baggage at the complainant’s residence on 04.05.2006 in good and sealed condition, it was reported to the opposite party by the complainant himself that, bag received in good and sealed condition, and he has put his signature for closing property irregularity report. The PCR was closed. Mr. Maniyeri Sasidharan has come to the Airport and given a letter to the opposite party that he had wrongly picked up the baggage and that the baggage was handed over to Raviraj. The opposite party had handed over his luggage on 10.05.2006 at 12.45 hrs in good condition. The allegation of the complainant that his bag was damaged and items were taken out etc has no merit and false. The claim of the complainant having been settled and having received the baggage untampered, the complainant’s grievance is not at all sustainable. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and Cost?
The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1, DW1, Ext.A1 to A15 and Ext.B1 to B4.
Issue 1 to 3 :
Admittedly the complainant had traveled on Air India Express Flight IX 344 from Dubai to Kozhikode and landed at Kozhikode on 16.04.2006. One piece of his baggage was missed on his arrival. At the same time an unclaimed identical bag carrying the tag bearing the name of “Maniyeri” was found therein. These facts are admitted by both parties.
The complainant alleged that the unclaimed bag was noticed by him and forthwith reported to the authorities. After waiting for a long time he went back giving his contact number and address to the staff of opposite party 2. Complainant thereafter enquired several times but there was no response to trace out the missing baggage. Even the address of the person whose name was written on tag of the unclaimed bag was not given to complainant. At last complainant himself started enquiry and with the help of police on lodging complaint. Maniyeri Sasidharan handed over the baggage to complainant on 04.05.2006 which was damaged and tampered with the knowledge of the opposite party. At the same time opposite party has the case that they had handed over his luggage on 10.05.2006 without any damage.
Ext.B1 is the property Irregularity Report issued by opposite party naturally on the same day of the arrival of the complainant at Kozhikode admittedly on 16.04.2006. Complainant though waited for a long time returned without getting his bag. PW1 in his proof affidavit alleges that the complaint made enquiry repeatedly but there was no response on the side of the opposite party. They were even not given friendly opportunity to talk with them. PW1 further states in proof affidavit that it is under this circumstances complainant himself started enquiring about the said Maniyeri in his own way. Atlast with the help of police Mr. Maniyeri agreed to return the bag to complainant with knowledge of opposite party on 04.05.2006.
Complainant sent a notice dated 28 April, 2006 requesting speedy action in tracing the missed bag. He has alleged in the notice that the opposite party could not help him in tracing the missed bag. He has detailed his grievances and requested for expeditious reply. Ext.B4 is the letter of Maniyeri Sasidharan dated 10.05.2006 stating that on his arrival at Calicut Airport he happened to pick up wrongly a different bag not belongs to him which he realized only after reaching home. He has further written that he has handed over the bag to Mr. Raviraj at his residence on 04.05.2006.
The relevant question to be considered is whether opposite party has taken serious measures to trace out the missed baggage after getting such a missing report from the complainant. The evidence given by DW1 by his proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination that immediately after getting information about the baggage loss, messages were send in computer world wide tracing system. But nothing has mentioned with respect to their dealing with the identical baggage and of its owner. When an identical bag is found it is quite natural to suspect the passenger who left such baggage might have picked up the missed baggage. But the authority of Air India has not made any attempt to have an enquiry about him even if there is substantial material with them to suspect him of having the baggage. Opposite party admitted in their affidavit that complainant himself found the suspected person Maniyeri. Complainant alleged that opposite party has not even co-operated with the complainant even to give his address or particulars. Opposite party has no case that the complainant found out this person with their help. Opposite party did not produce any evidence to prove the attempt on their part to trace out the baggage making enquiry about suspected passenger Mr. Maniyeri. This is of course a disrespect towards the feeling of a really aggrieved passenger which reveals clear deficiency in service. The attempt made on the part of the complainant is quite clear. Even the help of police was required to get back the bag which is not denied by the opposite party. That also reveals that it is only because of the hard work of the complainant the lost bag was found. In this case opposite party has not done anything even to contact the said Maniyeri. This is a best example of pure irresponsibility. Opposite parties tried fast to take shelter under the endorsement made in Ext. B1 property irregularity report to say the baggage was delivered to complainant in good and sealed condition and he has put his signature for closing irregularity report. The entry in Ext.B1, the property irregularity report creates suspicion with respect to genuinity of its contents. The entry in red ink will itself will itself makes it clear that it is done in a suspicious manner. Things cannot be depend upon those entry and endorsement since it has not been done properly with sufficient seriousness. They were merely eager to close this file.
In the light of the above discussion we are of opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. But at the same time complaint did produced any evidence with respect to details of article that he has lost in the baggage. He has not even mentioned the name of the articles either in the complaint or in the chief affidavit. We are under the impression that of any such valuable articles are lost it would have been clearly mentioned in the complaint what really it was. Under such circumstances we are of opinion that an amount of ` 5000 would meet the end of justice. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and they are liable to pay an amount of ` 5000(Five thousand only) as compensation taking into account the fact that an amount of ` 750 has already been received by complainant. Complainant is also entitled for a sum of ` 1000 as cost of this proceedings. Thus the issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of ` 5000(Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation with a sum of ` 1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Copy of Air ticket dated 12.04.2006.
A2. Copy of Property Irregularity Report dated 16.04.2006.
A3. Copy of complaint dated 28.04.2006.
A4. Copy of complaint dated 06.05.2006.
A5. Copy of Undertaking dated 04.05.2006
A6. Copy of Letter of Opposite Party dated 18.05.2006.
A7. Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 19.06.2006.
A8. Copy of Postal Receipts dated 19.06.2006.
A9. Copy of AD of O.P. No.1. dated 28.06.2006.
A10. Copy of AD of O.P. No.2. dated 28.06.2006.
A11. Copy of AD of O.P. No.3. dated 22.06.2006.
A12. Copy of Reply Notice of O.P. dated 13.07.2006.
A13. Copy of New Paper cutting.
A14. Copy of News Paper ‘Sudinam’. Dated 05.08.2006.
A15. Power of Attorney
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Property irregularity report.
B2. Authorisation letter
B3. Letter dated 28.04.2006 issued by the complainant.
B4. Letter dated 10.05.2006 made by Maniyeri Sasidharan.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. P.V. Rajeev
Witness examined for opposite party
DW1. R. Sukumar
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
