In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 192 / 2009.
1) Sri Pankaj Kumar Jain,
7H, Windsor Block, 26, Prince Anwar Shah Road,
Kolkata-700033. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Lufthansa Genman Airlines,
Room No. 3, 1st Floor, ITB NSCBI, Airport, Kolkata-7000052. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 26 Dated 08/06/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Pankaj KumarJain against the o.p. Lufthansa German Airlines. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is the Vice President (Finance & Commercial) of Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., a Aditya Birla Group company and in the month of Aug, 2008 had undertaken a business trip to abroad. Complainant was scheduled to return from Jacksonville, USA to New Delhi, India via connecting flights. However, due to a thunderstorm in Jacksonville, USA, complainant’s Continental Airways Flight No. CO 2046 from Jacksonville to Newark got inordinately delayed and therefore it was not possible for the complainant to board the pre-scheduled connecting flights of British Airways being Flight No.BA0184 from Newark, USA to London, UK and Flight No.BA0143 from London, UK to New Delhi. Hence, Continental Airways re-scheduled the connecting flights of the complainant in following manner:
(i) On 2.8.08 by Continental Airways Flight No. CO 2046Y (departure time being 18-00 hrs. local time) from Jacksonville, USA to Newark, USA.
(ii) On 3.8.08 by Continental Airways Flights No. CO 50 J from Newark, USA to Frankfurt, Germany (departure time being 19:25 hrs. local time) and
(iii) On 4.8.08 by Lufthansa Flight No. LH 760 from Frankfurt, Germany to New Delhi, India (departure time being 13:45 hrs. local time).
Complainant arrived at New Delhi on 5.8.08 at 12-30 a.m. from Frankfurt, Germany in the said Lufthansa flight being Flight no.LH 760 and upon his arrival at New Delhi, he was utterly shocked to learn that his baggage has not arrived at New Delhi in the said Lufthansa flight. Complainant immediately approached o.p’ Airport Baggage Section at the New Delhi Airport and reported the loss of his baggage and duly filled in a “Property Irregularity Report” form and completed all other formalities. Thereafter, on the same day, o.p. confirmed the loss / damage to complainant’s baggage on account of their conduct and as a token of acknowledgement of the loss / damage on their account, o.p. granted an interim compensation of Rs.4000/- on the spot and complainant confirmed the receipt of an interim compensation by signing a ‘Cash Receipt’.
Further case of the complainant is that complainant gave his permanent address and his hotel address in New Delhi to o.p’s staff in New Delhi Airport and was assured by them that they would inform the status of the baggage to complainant and in case complainant’s baggage is retrieved by o.p. the same would be delivered to complainant’s hotel in New Delhi where he was staying till the morning of 7.8.08. However, complainant received no information from o.p. about the status of his baggage despite having made several phone calls to o.p’s office in New Delhi.
Thereafter, on 8.8.08 without any prior intimation to the complainant, two staff members of o.p. came to complainant’s residence at Merlin Residency, 7H, Windsor Block, 26, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-33 with the complainant’s baggage which was in a broken condition. It was obvious to the complainant that someone had already opened the baggage and pilfered and/or stolen all the valuable items. Upon comparing the items originally present in the baggage and the items finally recovered from the Lufthansa Airlines, it was found that various items were missing from the baggage, a list of which is annexed hereto and marked as annex-I. Hence, the case filed by complainant with the prayer mentioned in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
Op. had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument vehemently denied the case of the complainant and further stated that complainant is not entitled to relief as prayed for and the case 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 there is profuse deficiency on the part of o.p. being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.65,690/- (Rupees sixty five thousand six hundred ninety) only towards the value of the lost goods belonging to complainant and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. 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.
_____Sd-_____ _____Sd-_____ ______Sd-______
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
