West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/11/184

Somnath Chattopadhyay - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lufthansa Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

07 Nov 2012

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Unit-I, Kolkata
http://confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/184
 
1. Somnath Chattopadhyay
Falt no.4, South Point Cooperative Housing Society, 64/1, Jainuddin Mistry Lane, Kolkata-700027.
Kolkata
WB
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Lufthansa Airlines
30A/B, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071.
Kolkata
WB
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. Sankar Nath Das PRESIDENT
  Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri MEMBER
  Smt. Sharmi Basu MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

 

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.184 / 2011

 

1)                   Somnath Chattopadhyay,

Flat No.4, South Point Cooperative Housing Society,

641, Jainuddin Mistry Lane, Kolkata-27                                                                ---------- Complainant

 

---Versus---

1)                   Lufthansa German Airlines,

Room No.3, 1st Floor, NSCBI Airport,

International Terminal, Kolkata-52.                                                                    ---------- Opposite Party

 

                          

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

                                        

Order No.     17       Dated  07/01/2012.

 

            The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Somnath Chattopadhyay against the o.p. Lufthansa German Airlines. The case of the complainant in short is that on 10.8.10 complainant has travelled from Los Angels, USA – Kolkata by flight operated b y United Airlines Inc. His carry on baggage was overweight. But as per complainant all other flight allowed the carry on baggage on medical grounds because complainant has to carry insulin injection implements blood sugar monitor and inhaler pump for h is diabetes and also other medical and travel documents.

            Further case of the complainant is that on 19.8.10 while complainant was returning back from Los Angels by flight with some carry on baggage of same weight, the ground staff viz. Mr. S. Srivastava, Mr. A. Roychowdhury and Mr. A. Singh of Kolkata Airport did not allow the complainant to carry the medical baggage in the aircraft along with the boarding pass due to overweight. He informed Kolkata ground staff at the airport that the ground staff of United Airlines and Lufthansa at LAX SFO and Frankfurt allowed the overweight baggage on medical ground in previous flights. He has shown the medical certificate, but the staff of Lufthansa told complainant that complainant can avail this flight, if he would pay $ 250 for this carry on baggage. They also told the carry on baggage will be sent as check in baggage with other two check in bags of complainant. He has requested the station staff to allow this baggage as a carry on baggage after paying said amount to Lufthansa because of life saving medicines were lying with the carry on baggage, but they refused and as a result of which complainant had to suffer huge physical discomfort for not having the required medicines which were lying with the carry on baggage. Complainant as a result of which ultimately fell seriously sick and on being requested none of the staff came forward with the carry on baggage containing medicines which was kept elsewhere by the personnel of airlines.

            Further case of the complainant is that h e received the said medicine bag after lapse of profuse hours and this resulted in further inconvenience to the complainant so far his ailment is concerned since the cargo luggage was sent to somewhere else other than the specific destination of the complainant. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

 

            O.p. had entered his appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against him and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

 

            Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that the action on the part of o.p. is something inhumane and this sort of activities should be curd for the sake and interest of boarders at large. One must be sympathetic on the ground of ailment and the action on the part of o.p. cannot be imagine at any stretch of imagination and this act on the part of o.p. amounts to deficiency in service being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest against the o.p. with cost. O.p. is directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

 

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Sankar Nath Das]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri]
MEMBER
 
[ Smt. Sharmi Basu]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.