BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

 Date of filing :  13.05.2014

                                                                                              Date of order : 25.04.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                    President

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                  Member,

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                        Member.

                            CC.No.351/2014

                                   Between

O R D E R

Beena Kumari V.K.   Member 

1)     A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

         The complainant along with his family members travelled from Dubai Airport to Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL), Nedumbassery in the IndiGo flight operated by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties on 23.04.2014.  It was their return journey.  They were carrying 4 baggages and 2 carton boxes weighing 106 kgms in total.  They reached CIAL on the next day ie., on 24.04.2014 at 4.30 A.M. On reaching Kochi, the complainant found that one carton box weighing 28 kgs was missing and the complainant’s tag No.GEO312023648 was wrongly fastened to a 10 litre mineral water bottle.  The complainant alleged that complainant’s tag was wrongly attached to 10 litre bottle of mineral water for making unlawful enrichment of 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties and that the 3^rd opposite party is also responsible for the manipulation effected and this complaint is filed seeking directions of this Forum to pay the value of the articles valued Rs.1,44,000/- contained in the lost carton along with 12% interest thereon with effect from 24.04.2014 till the date of realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and troubles caused to the complainant along with costs of the proceedings.

2)     Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Forum and the opposite parties filed their version in response to the notices received by them.

3)     Version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

        It is contended that this complaint is not maintainable against the 2^nd opposite party for want of territorial jurisdiction, that the 2^nd opposite party neither operates nor works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Forum, that the 1^st opposite party had offered compensation of USD 500 to the complainant as per Clause 16.4 of the conditions of carriage of IndiGo and the offer was communicated to the complainant by mail dated 16.05.2014, that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2, that despite issuance of the above email, the complainant has not yet furnished the beneficiary details.  It is further submitted that the opposite parties had only given an oral offer of USD 500 from the 1^st opposite party is not correct, that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are also not liable to pay the value of the lost articles as alleged by the complainant, therefore the opposite parties sought for the dismissal of this complaint with exemplary costs to the opposite parties.

4)     Version of the 3^rd opposite parties.

        It is submitted that this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case, that this complaint is filed by the complainant on an experimental basis with a view to extract a substantial amount from the opposite parties, that the 3^rd opposite party was in no way responsible for handling the baggage of the complainant, that the averments of the complainant are all incorrect, that the opposite parties had committed criminal offense of breach of trust and cheating, is absolutely false, that the averment of the complainant that the bills of the lost items in the lost carton were kept in the said carton box itself is absolutely false that there is no cause of action against the 3^rd opposite party.  Therefore the 3^rd opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

5)     The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

        1.       Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

2.       Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3.       Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay the value of the articles contained in the lost carton box and the interest on the value of lost articles?

4.       Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant compensation for the mental agony, if any, suffered by the complainant along with costs of this proceedings?

6)     The evidence in this case consisted of the documentary evidences marked as Exbt. A1 to A1 (a), Exbt. A2 & A2 (a) Exbt. A3 to A6 on the side of the complainant.  The complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1 and the 3^rd opposite party has adduced oral evidence as DW1.  No documentary evidence furnished by the opposite parties.

7)     Issue No. (i)

        On 13.04.2014 the complainant his wife and 2 children had travelled by Indigo flight from CIAL, Nedumbassery, Kochi to Dubai.  On 23.04.2014 the complainant and his family in the return journey had travelled in the very same company flight vide IndiGo flight No.6E-68 from Dubai to CIAL, Nedumbassery, Kochi.  The complainant reached Kochi, on 24.04.2014.  The complainant on reaching CIAL, Nedumbassery found that one carton box weighing 28 kgms was missing and a Property Irregularity Report (PIR) was prepared on the spot on 24.04.2014.  The loss of the above carton box is the cause of action for this complaint.  There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant and his family had travelled from Dubai to Kochi on 23.04.2014 in their return journey in the IndiGo Flight. The destination of the above said travel was at CIAL, Nedumbassery and the carton box belonging to the complainant was found lost when he reached CIAL, Nedumbassery.  Therefore part of the cause of action is in Kochi.  Hence this Forum has ample territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Thus the 1^st issue is decided in favour of the complainant.

8)     Issue No. (ii) and (iii)

        Exbt. A1 Booking reference would go to show that the complainant had booked four air tickets through speed wings Travels and Cargo, in IndiGo flights as detailed below:

        The complainant was carrying 4 baggage and 2 carton boxes during his return travel on 23.04.2014 from Dubai and Kochi.  Exbt. A1 (a) encloses original passenger tickets 4 Numbers issued on 13.04.2014 and Exbt. A2 encloses copies of 5 luggage tags and Exbt. A2 (a) encloses the originals of the above luggage tags 5 numbers out of the 6 luggage tags issued to the complainant.  The tag No. 6E0312023648 attached one carton box, weighing 28 kgs was found missing along with the carton box when the complainant reaching CIAL on 24.04.2014 at 4.30 A.M. and a PIR was prepared on the spot and Exbt. A3 is a photocopy of the PIR stating that 1 piece weighing 25 KGS was missing out of 6 pieces weighing 106 KGS.  The complainant had filed a written complaint dated 29.04.2014 to the 3^rd opposite party – the Technical Manager/Chief Security Office of CIAL requesting to take urgent steps to find out the missing carton through advanced security system as evidenced by Exbt. A4 letter dated 29.04.2014.  Exbt. A5 and A6 are the copies of the complainant’s passport and visa respectively.  The complainant contended that the lost carton weighed 28 KGS and the articles contained therein valued Rs.144,000/- as detailed below:

        The loss of carton weighing 28 kilo is established by the complainant in this case since the 6 baggage were confirmed at Dubai airport and the total weight of baggage delivered was only 78 kilo against 106 kgs. But the relevant purchase bills of the items contained in the lost carton were not produced by the complainant.  Therefore, the averment the complainant that the lost carton contained goods valued Rs.1,44,000/- is found not acceptable especially in view of the fact that the value of the contents was not declared in advance to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The complainant also contended that the 3^rd opposite party had not taken any sincere efforts to trace the missing carton when the baggages of the passengers arrived at the Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL), Nedumassery.  The complainant had given Exbt. A4 letter dated 29.04.2014 requesting to trace the missing carton weighing 28 kilo using advanced security system like CCTV.  But by the time, the above letter was given to the 3^rd opposite party the CCTB footage was not available with the 3^rd opposite party since it was destroyed.  It is pertinent to note that no evidence produced by the 3^rd opposite party to show the efforts taken by the 3^rd opposite party to trace the missing carton belonging to the complainant.  The Manager of IndiGo deposed before the Forum as DW1 that baggage weighing 106 KG entrusted with them and only 78 KG could be delivered to the complainant, when the complainant landed in Kochi on 24.04.2014 DW1 also deposed before the Forum that the 2^nd opposite party had issued an email on 16.05.2014 offering 500 USD to compensate the missed carton box.  But the email copy not produced before the Forum. The complainant had by mistake mentioned the weight of the lost carton box as 25 KGs in the Exbt. A3 PIR instead of 28 KGs.  Therefore the opposite party IndiGo Company had offered 500 USD (ie. 25 x 20 + 500USD) towards compensation.  The opposite party IndiGo is not entitled to take the advantage of the genuine mistake of the complainant in inadvertently mentioning the weight of the missed carton as 25 kg in Exbt. A3 PIR.  We find that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and the opposite parties admitted the deficient service on their part.  Therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled to get the value of the contents of the lost carton box weighing 28 kgs at the rate of 20USD per KG ie., we find that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to pay the complainant 560 USD (28 KG x 20USD) as provided in Clause 16.4 of the IndiGo conditions of carriage or IndiGo COC.  The above amount shall be paid in the corresponding Indian Rupees as on 24.04.2014.  the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall also pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. thereon from 24.04.2014 till the date of realization.  The 2^nd and 3^rd issues are thus decided in favour of the complainant.

9)     Issue No. (iv)

        The deficiency on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties is proved by the complainant.  The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party also.  The 3^rd opposite party have not produced any evidence to show the efforts taken by them to trace the missed carton box.  Therefore the 3^rd opposite party also is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the deficient service or no service offered to the complainant.  We find that the opposite parties shall pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant.  The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several.  Had the 2^nd opposite party paid the cheque compensation when the complainant approached them, this complaint would not have been filed by the complainant.  Therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled to get costs which we fix at Rs.10,000/-.

10)    In the result, this complaint is partly allowed and we direct as follows:

1. The 1^st and  2^nd opposite parties shall pay to the complainant 560 USD at the rate of Indian rupees prevalent on 24.04.2014 towards the value of the contents of the lost carton box weighing 28 KGS with interest at the rate of 12% from 24.04.2014 till the date of realization.
2. The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall pay to the complainant jointly and severally Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the deficient service and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
3. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

                 The above orders shall be complied with, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of April 2017.

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch

By Hand :

By Post:

                                                          APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:         

PW1                ::  P.K.Venu

DW1                ::   Sinish C.S.  

                                         …................