BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 102/2006 Filed on 28.03.2006

Dated : 31.08.2011

Complainant :

R. Jayaprakash, 'Vijay', T.C 6/1164, House No. 124, KERA, Harismrithi Lane, Kanjirampara, Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.

(By adv. S. Reghukumar)

Opposite parties :

1. Indian Airlines Ltd., No. 113, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road, New Delhi-110 001.

    

2. The Airport Manager, Indian Airlines Ltd., Bangalore.

    

3. The Manager, Indian Airlines Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)

This O.P having been heard on 05.07.2011, the Forum on 31.08.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that on 24.04.2005 complainant travelled from Delhi to Bangalore in Indian Airlines flight No. I.C. 506 to attend 3 days conference at Hubli, organised by the National Federation of Insurance Field Workers of India, that complainant had carried 3 bags with him, that the said bags were properly sealed and all of them were tagged at the Indian Airlines Check-in counter at Delhi airport by the officials of the opposite party, that when the flight arrived at Bangalore, it was found one bag was missing, that complainant reported the same to the authorities of the opposite parties, that initially the officials did not take any action at all, later the officials registered a property report, that the files and other essential data, clothes etc. were packed in the bag which was missing. Complainant approached the opposite parties many times and enquired about the bag over telephone several times, that complainant had no other alternative, but to make shopping of clothes etc. to attend the conference, that he was not in a position to deliver the well prepared speech and take classes as his files and research materials were not available with him, which caused severe mental agony and disappointment to the complainant. On 27.04.2005 while the complainant was returning from Bangalore he went to the airport and enquired about the baggage. Opposite parties disclosed that the missing bag was found out, that on taking delivery of the bag, the complainant found that the alleged missing tag was attached to the bag, that had it been delivered to the complainant at the proper time he could have attended the conference properly and could have made use of the materials kept in the bag. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation along with costs.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending interalia that complainant had travelled from Delhi to Bangalore in opposite parties' flight on 24.04.2005, that opposite parties are not aware of the occupation and position of the complainant, that complainant had carried 3 bags with him while travelling and out of the 3 bags one bag did not reach Bangalore along with the flight, that as soon as the complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties, PIR was prepared and a copy was given to the complainant and baggage tracer was flashed through CRT to all concerned stations on the same day itself. Opposite parties have done all possible measures and steps that they could take, that as a result of opposite parties' effort the baggage was traced at Delhi Airport and forwarded by IC 904 of the same day under rush tag No. 020837, that complainant was immediately informed about the arrival of the baggage, that complainant was away at Hubli and informed the opposite parties that he will collect the same while travelling Bangalore-Trivandrum on 27.04.2005 by IC 909. The allegation that his clothes etc. were in the missing bag are not correct, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and hence they are not liable to the complainant to any extent whatsoever. There is no basis for which the compensation is claimed and the amount claimed is very exorbitant. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation? If so, at what quantum?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get cost? If so, at what quantum?

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal 3^rd opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D4.

Points (i) to (iii):- There is no dispute on the point that complainant travelled from Delhi to Bangalore in Indian Airlines Flight No. IC 506 on 24.04.2005. There is no dispute on the point that complainant had carried 3 bags with him while travelling from Delhi to Bangalore. Admittedly, out of the 3 bags one bag did not reach Bangalore along with the flight. There is no dispute on the point that complainant had reported the matter to the opposite parties. It has been the case of the complainant that he went to Bangalore by flight to attend a 3 days' conference at Hubli. It has also been the case of the complainant that he had prepared well for the conference and files and other essential data and his clothes were packed in the bag which was missing. It has also been the case of the complainant that though complainant explained all these to the officials of the opposite parties they took a defiant attitude and ignored the complaints. Admittedly, complainant took delivery of the said bag on 27.04.2005. Complainant's evidence consisted of his oral testimony and Exs. P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the passenger ticket and baggage check issued by opposite party to the complainant. Ext. P2 is the Expedite Baggage Rush. On perusal of Ext. P2 it is seen the weight of the baggage is 11 kg. Ext. P3 series are journey cum reservation ticket from Bangalore city to Hubli issued by Indian Railway. Ext. P4 is the copy of the PIR. In his cross examination the complainant as PW1 has deposed that he is a frequent traveller and opposite party is aware of his official status. In his cross examination he has admitted that his case is against the delay in delivery of one of the baggages entrusted with the opposite parties. He has further deposed that initially opposite parties did not respond to the missing baggage nor did they register his complaint, later under the direction of the higher officials opposite parties filled the PIR. On being asked about the copy of the PIR, complainant said he will retrace it if it is available. Opposite parties' evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the 3^rd opposite party and Exts. D1 to D4. 3^rd opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant. In his cross examination DW1 has admitted that baggage should go along with the passenger, but he denied the suggestion that baggage was missing due to wilful negligence of the opposite party. Ext. D1 is the copy of the PIR, which is seen dated 24.04.2005. Ext. D2 is the copy of Indian Airlines – Live R/W Lo dated 24.04.2005. Ext. D3 is the copy of the reminder to Baggage Cell, Delhi. Ext. D4 is the specimen copy of the passenger ticket and baggage check. It is pertinent to point out that though complainant had deposed that his case is not against delay but the wilful negligence because of which a tagged baggage was not sent in the flight. But the negligence is not pleaded in the complaint nor proved it with cogent evidence. Admittedly, one bag did not reach Bangalore along with the flight, thereby it can be conceived that there was delay in delivering one bag. It is not seen stated in the version when did opposite party trace the baggage at Delhi airport and forwarded by IC 904 of the same day under rush tag No. 020837. But as per Ext. D3 it is seen that the said baggage was forwarded under rush tag No. 020837 on 25.04.2005. Further as per Ext. D1 PIR is seen filled on 24.04.2005. On perusal of Ext. D1 and D2 we can come to the conclusion that there was a delay of one day in rushing the traced baggage to the airport concerned. Opposite party has no case that they had delivered the entrusted baggage to the complainant on 24.04.2005, thereby there is delay in delivering the missing baggage, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which opposite parties cannot escape from the liability to compensate the complainant. In view of the above, we deem that justice will be well met if complainant is given a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation along with Rs. 1,000/- as costs within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of August 2011.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 102/2006

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - R. Jayaprakash

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Passenger ticket and baggage check.

P2 - Expedite Baggage Rush.

P3 - Journey cum reservation tickets from Bangalore city to Hubli.

P4 - Copy of Property Irregularity Report.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Leena Vineeth

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of Property Irregularity Report

D2 - Copy of Indian Airlines -Live R/W Lo dated 24.04.2005

D3 - Copy of the reminder to Baggage Cell, Delhi.

D4 - Passenger ticket and baggage check.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb