Delhi

StateCommission

A/223/2015

DIPAK BHATTACHARYYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                              Date of Arguments:17.08.2016

     Date of Decision:30.08.2016

 

Appeal No.223/15

 

In the matter of:

 

Dipak Bhattacharya

233, New Lawyers Chamber

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi-110 001.

 

Also: P-122, C.R.Park,

New Delhi-110019.

Versus

 

1. Indian Airlines Ltd.,

Airlines House, Raquab Ganj,

New Delhi- 110 001.

 

2. Shri Sunil Arora

Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Indian Airlines Ltd.,

Airlines House Raquab Ganj,

New Delhi.

 

3. Shri A.K. Jain, Manager,

Indian Airlines,

Delhi Airport,

New Delhi.

 

 

 

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes        

 

Judgement

        This order will dispose of application for condonation of delay filed by appellant.  The appellant has challenged order dated 02.01.14 passed by Consumer District Redressal Forum II in complaint  No. 418/07.  The plea of the appellant is that he obtained original order on 22.03.15 i.e. after 14 months of the passing of the order.  According to him the complaint was finally heard in District Forum on 05.09.13 and the matter was reserved for orders without fixing any date.  He inquired on 17.12.13, 13.03.14, 08.07.14, 30.09.14 and -4.12.14 when he was informed that judgement was yet to be passed by the District Forum.  He submitted application on 16.03.15 for passing the judgement on which the judgement in original was handed over to him without complying the provisions  of Consumer Protection Regulation 2005.  Delay in filing the appeal took place and the same was not willful.  He did not specify the number of days for which appeal was delayed and which was sought to be condoned, in the application under consideration the appeal has been filed on 5^th May, 2015.

2.     The respondent opposed the application by filing the reply.  It took objection that application calls aspersion on the working of district forum, so it portraits the prescribed rules and regulations with regard to preparation of certified copies of orders had not been followed by the district forum.  On bare perusal of the certified copy of impugned order annexed with the appeal it reveals that it was dispatched on 09.01.14 under dispatch No., 2888-2891.  The appellant has not put on record envelope in which he received the said copy to show that he received the same on 22.03.15 only as claimed by him.

3.     The respondent has also taken a plea that even if appellant received a copy of order dated 22.03.15, appeal filed on 05.05.15 is beyond period of 30 days.  Appellant has not given any reasons for the said period.

4.     On merits the respondent denied that the appellant inquired on different dates alleged by him about the order from the district forum.  The appellant has not put on record any proof of making said inquiries.

5.     I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The copy of impugned order filed by the appellant       shows that it was dispatched on 09.01.14 as mentioned on the top of the copy.  There is no reason to disbelieve the same. There is presumption in favour of regularity.

6.     Simply because the district forum did not pronounce the order within the period provided in regulation, it does not entitle the appellant to seek condonation of delay.  After all the litigant is expected to be vigilant and pursue the outcome of this case.  He can not sleep for more than 14 months.  In view of the aforesaid reasons I do not think that appellant is able to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay.  Consequently the application is dismissed and with this appeal must stand dismissed as being barred by limitation.

7.     Still I feel it proper to give a brief description of facts to show that even otherwise the appeal has no merits. The services of the appellant availed of services of respondent no. 1 for travelling from Kolkatta to New Delhi on 01.01.2003.  He was unable to  trace his baggage despite waiting at the baggage conveyor belt for about one hour.  He did not find anyone present on the  counter to take his report.  The flight was already delayed by three hours. Having undergone arduous and futile exercise, he decided to return to his home and sent a official letter through special messenger to respondent No. 1 narrating loss of his baggage.  The first suit case contained woolen garments including three piece of black suits, full sleeve sweater, second bag contained legal books and briefs and other valuable documents and third bag contained novelties which he purchased from various fares at Kolkatta, Shantiniketan.  He sent a fax message on 02.01.03.  Respondent No. 3 sent a letter dated 10.01.03 denying the allegation of the appellant.  The respondent made false allegation that appellant failed to provide description of lost baggage.  Hence he filed complaint for directions to respondent to pay Rs. 4,80,000/- towards loss of baggage and compensation under different heads.  Respondent filed written statement that appellant should have reported non-receipt of baggage immediately.  Appellant did not make any such complaint for the reasons best known to him.  It was only at 1905 hrs that a representative of the appellant contacted the assistant at counter and gave copies of air tickets of the complainant. The respondent highlighted that the complainant made similar complaint in the year 1998.  He travelled from Kolkatta to Delhi, in that case also the complainant left airport without reporting any loss of baggage upon termination of his journey.  As a special case the respondent compensated the appellant  @ 300 per kg. for the allegedly lost baggage in accordance with schedule II of the carriage by Airport Act 1972.  Hence the complaint was dismissed by district forum.   

8.     In the above background I feel that appellant is habitual of making claim against loss of baggage. This cannot be appreciated particularly when he had been counsel of the respondent.

9.     The application for condonation of delay and appeal both are dismissed.

        Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

        Copy of this order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)