Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1 Sarabjit Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant had booked 6 Air Tickets from opposite party No.1 i.e. Jet Airways through Cleatrip bearing TRIP ID-1411032615 having Ticket No. 5895854404434 to 39 Airline PNR JxVADQ . The date of journey was 13th December 2014 and the complainant has to return on 17th December 2014. The journey was from Amritsar to Kathmandu through Delhi. When the complainant went to opposite party No.1 and got the boarding pass therefrom and handed over the entire 11 bags to the opposite party No.1. The complainant alongwith other passengers went through the screening of all the bags which were sent to the baggage department. The complainant departed from Amritsar Airport and stayed at Delhi Airport about 45 minutes and then the aircraft took the passengers to Kathmandu. The complainant alongwith his family members had gone to Kathmandu to attend the family marriage function and they carried gold jewellery with them. The complainant had kept his wife’s gold jewellery set in one of the bag red in colour which was not permitted by the Airport authority to be carried on in Cabin . However, they handed over the said baggage to the baggage section. When complainant arrived at Kathmandu Airport about 4.00 p.m., the complainant & his family members had to wait for the baggage for about 1 to 1 ½ hours. However, to their utter dismay and surprise , when the baggage was supplied , the seals of bags were broken. Immediately complainant approached the Airport authority at Kathmandu and the Jet Airways employees as well. Thereafter, the complainant inspected the whole baggage in the presence of Airport authority and Jet Airways employees Mr.Laxman Sandeep and Sushil Kumar, Security Incharge. After inspection, complainant found that one gold jewellery set weighing about 5 tolas worth Rs. 1,40,000/- and one wrist watch worth Rs. 18000/- were found missing from the baggage. The complainant asked the higher authority of the Airport to get the matter investigated. However, they suggested the complainant to file the complaint before the “lost and found department” at Airport Kathmandu. Accordingly, complainant approached the said department and moved a written complaint before them and also received one copy of that complaint. Copy of said complaint is attached. On 14.12.2014 at about 12:29 a.m., the complainant lodged online complaint at email address th December 2014. On 24th December 2014 opposite party No.1 sent an e-mail to the complainant rejecting the claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
(i) Opposite parties be directed to pay Rs. 1,58,000/- on account of negligence, carelessness by which complainant had to bear loss of one gold set jewellery about 5 tolas and wrist watch ;
(ii) Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and damages ;
(iii) Complainant may also be awarded litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 50000/-.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written replying taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that instant complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with costs for being false, vexatious and misconceived. It is submitted that present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention only to cause undue harassment to answering opposite party ; it is further submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant complaint, since in the terms of the complaint’s averments, no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and instant complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone ; that complaint is not maintainable as complainant has sought to seek redressal for people who have not been arrayed as complainant, neither the complainant produced any authority letter, for perusing the present complaint on their behalf ; that terms and conditions governing the travel of guests onboard the flights of answering opposite party, as also available on its official website, clearly indicates that valuables are best carried in the cabin. The said terms and conditions further state that in respect of the International Carriage of Baggage (checked baggage or unchecked baggage), the carrier’s liability is limited as per the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 as amended by Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act, 2009 read with the provisions of Conventions i.e. Warsaw Convention, 1929 or Montreal Convention, 1999 (as may be applicable). It is further stated that when the passenger has made at the time of check-in, a special declaration of interest in respect of the baggage and has paid a supplementary sum, the carried shall be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger’s actual interest in delivery at destination. In the instant case, the complainant did not declare the value for the contents of the said baggage and has also not paid a supplementary sum for the same at the time of check-in at the origin airport i.e. Amritsar Airport. Assuming without admitting , had the complainant been carrying such valuables as alleged, he still failed to carry the same as a cabin baggage. In parawise reply, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost has been made.
3. Opposite party No.2 duly served. But non put in appearance on his behalf, as such it was already proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of air ticket Ex.C-1, copy of e-mail Ex.C-2, copy of e-mail Ex.C-3, wedding card Ex.C-4, photographs Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8, copy of letter written to the manager, Lost and Found Section, Kathmandu Ex.C-9, visiting card Ex.C-10, copy of application to baggage counter at Amritsar (Lost and Found) Ex.C-11, bill dated 7.2.2013 Ex.C-12, copy of legal fee bill Ex.C-13 and closed his evidence.
5. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Rajesh Bhatia,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vishal Luthra Ex.OP1/1 , copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
7. On the basis of the evidence on record, ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant alongwith his family members boarded Kathmandu Jet Airways flight from Amritsar International Airport on 13.12.2014. Copy of the Air ticket accounts for Ex.C-1. The complainant was scheduled to return on 17th December 2014. The complainant went to opposite party No.2 to get boarding passes therefrom and also handed over the entire 11 bags to the opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 went through screening of all the bags and sent the same to the baggage department. The complainant departed from Amritsar Airport and stayed at Delhi Airport for about 45 minutes on 13.12.2014 & then the aircraft left for Kathmandu. The complainant alongwith his family members went to Kathmandu to attend the family marriage function and they carried gold jewellery with them i.e. one gold jewellery set weighing 5 tolas worth Rs. 1,40,000/- , one wrist watch worth Rs. 18000/-. But, however, when complainant arrived at Kathmandu Airport at about 4.00 p.m., the complainant and his whole family members had to wait for the baggage for about 1 to 1 ½ hours. Ultimately, when they received the baggage from the baggage chain, the seals of the baggage were broken. The complainant immediately approached the Airport authority at Kathmandu and Jet Airways employees as well. The complainant inspected the whole baggage in the presence of Airport Authority and Jet Airways’ employees. After inspection, complainant found that one gold jewellery set weighing about 5 tolas worth Rs. 1,40,000/- and one wrist watch worth Rs. 18000/- missing from the baggage. The complainant lodged a complaint with Airport Authority Kathmandu regarding loss of the gold articles. Copy of the complaint accounts for Ex.C-9. On 14.12.2014 at about 12.29 a.m the complainant lodged online complaint at e-mail address th December 2014, opposite party No.1 sent an e-mail to the complainant rejecting to satisfy the claim of the complainant. It is contended that the opposite parties are guilty of deficient service. The complainant is entitled to the loss suffered at the hands of the opposite parties in which the gold articles as well as wrist watch in dispute were found stolen while on board. It is, therefore, contended that complaint may be allowed and the complainant may also be awarded compensation as well as expenses for litigation as prayed for and the complaint may be allowed accordingly.
8. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant has not been able to prove his case. No part of cause of action has arisen at Amritsar and as per the allegations made in the complaint, the articles were found missing when the Aircraft reached Kathmandu Airport , as such District Consumer Forum, Amritsar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
9. Even otherwise also, the complainant is not entitled to make good the loss of stolen articles from the opposite parties. In view of the conditions for General Jet Airways, copy whereof is Ex.OP1/2, as per Notice of Limitation of Liability. Notice of Limitation reads as under : - “In respect of domestic carriage of baggage (checked baggage or unchecked baggage), the carrier’s liability is limited as per the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 as amended by the notification dated January 17,2014 issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India.
In respect of International carriage of baggage (checked baggage or unchecked baggage) the carrier’s liability is limited as per the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 as amended by Carriage by Air (Amendment Act, 2009) read with the provisions of the Conventions i.e. Warsaw Convention 1920 or Montreal Convention, 1999 (as may be applicable)
In both the cases mentioned above, where the passenger has made at the time of check in, a special declaration of interest in respect of the baggage and has paid a supplementary sum, the carrier shall be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger’s actual interest in delivery at destination.”
10. Case of the complainant has to be governed by the aforesaid notice of limitation liability . The complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions for enabling him to file a claim for loss of goods allegedly incurred in the flight. The complainant has not made any special declaration of interest in respect of the baggage nor he has paid a supplementary sum to cover the risk. In that eventuality the carrier shall not be liable to pay any sum regarding the loss to the goods, if any, during transit. The complainant was also guilty of not disclosing the contents of the alleged baggage in dispute to the Jet Airways authorities at the time of the boarding the plane. He has also failed to make any such fee for the safe passage of the jewellery as well as wrist watch in dispute to the Jet Airways Authority. In such a situation any loss occurred to the goods belonging to the complainant is absolutely not payable by the opposite parties and the opposite parties are justified in rejecting the claim of the complainant .
11. In our considered opinion the opposite parties are not guilty of any deficient service. Rather the complainant himself has to be blamed for not disclosing the contents of the bag in dispute at the time of boarding the flight and further the complainant has not paid any special fee regarding the valuables allegedly carried by him at the relevant time . Therefore, instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and as such instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 01.09.2016
/R/
