Advocate V.B.Pandit for the
Complainant
Advocate Prashant Patil for
the Opponent
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 29th May 2013
This complaint is filed by passenger against Airlines Company for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is retired Assistant General Manager of Bank of Maharashtra. He is the frequent traveler of the Opponent Airlines Company. As he has availed services of Opponent Company he is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Opponent is renowned Airlines Company. Opponent is providing services for consideration and there were relations between the complainant and the Opponent as consumer and service provider.
On 14/6/2009 complainant traveled by Opponent’s Plane from Indore to Pune. He carried 3 bags with him. One bag was with him in Cabin Luggage and two bags were in the Staller Section of the Plane. Out of two bags one bag was lost at Lohgaon Airport, Pune. Complainant immediately informed this fact to the representative of the Opponent. Representative of the Opponent Mr. Raymond estimated the cost of bag and luggage to the tune of Rs.32,000/-. But subsequently complainant was informed that he will get Rs.5000/- only by way of full and final settlement. According to the complainant this is deficiency in service followed by unfair trade practice. He has claimed damages for loss of luggage to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.25,000/- for preparing legal documents and telephone diary, Rs.15,000/- for purchasing apparels and sarees, Rs.20,000/- for sundry expenses. His total claim is Rs.3,00,000/-. He has claimed interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount.
[2] Opponent resisted the claim by filing written statement. It is flatly denied by the Opponent that there is deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. As regards the journey of the complainant by Plane, this fact is not disputed by the Opponent. It is also not disputed that one of the bags belonging to the complainant was lost. But it is denied specifically that the representative of the Opponent estimated the loss of complainant to the tune of Rs.32,000/-. It is the case of the Opponent that as per the rules the Opponent is responsible to pay compensation @ Rs.450/- per kg for the loss of goods. According to the Opponent the weight of the goods in the said bag was 9 kg. Hence complainant is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.4050/-. It is further contended that Opponent offered Rs.5000/- by way of full and final settlement. Claim as regards compensation for loss of luggage, mental agony and other expenses are denied by the Opponent. The Opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence on record which is produced by rival parties, considering the pleadings and affidavits following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved that Opponent has caused deficiency in service ? | In the affirmative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed |
REASONS
As to the Point Nos.1 and 2-
The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that complainant had traveled by the plane of Opponent’s Airline Company and one of his bag was lost. It is the case of the complainant that the bag was containing valuables such as costly camera, wearing apparels, sarres, telephone diary and legal documents etc. It is also contended by the complainant that the representative of the Opponent Mr. Raymond had estimated the cost of the luggage to the tune of Rs.32,000/-. But subsequently the Opponent offered Rs.5,000/- only. It is the case of the Opponent that as per the provisions of Carriage by Air Act 1972 the Airlines Company is liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.450/- per kg. The weight of the luggage belonging to the complainant was 9 kg. Hence complainant is entitled to the tune of Rs.4050/-. It is also contended that as per the contract the Airlines liability for loss or damage to the baggage is limited to INR 450/- per kg, unless a special declaration of the value has been made in advance and the supplementary sum paid. Excess valuation may not be declared on certain types of the articles. The airline assumes no liability for fragile or perishable articles. It is significant to note that the complainant never declared in advance the value of the articles in the bag which was lost. There was no special agreement between the complainant and the Opponent. In such circumstances the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.4050/- as per the provisions of the said Act. It reveals from the record that the complainant had spontaneously given the list of the articles which were lost due to the loss of luggage/bag and he has referred in the list that one camera, legal documents, telephone diary were also lost. It is significant to note that the complaint of the complainant is not after thought complaint. Hence he is entitled to get additional compensation for the price of the bag as well as articles in the bag which were lost due to the negligence of the Opponent. In my opinion complainant is entitled to receive additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- besides offer of Rs.5000/- which was offered by the Opponent. He is also entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and physical sufferings due to the loss of luggage. He is further entitled to receive Rs.2,000/- as costs of the proceeding.
I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. Opponent is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.5000/-
towards offer and additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
3. Opponent is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical sufferings and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of proceeding within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
