This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of             Tulluru Ramesh Babu, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. K. Ravindranath, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri. P. Madhav Raja, President)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is permanent resident of Khammam and was studying MS at Arizona State in USA. On 15-05-2009 from phoenix to Hyderabad the complainant has boarded the Opposite Party airlines flight and exchanged in to other Opposite Party airline flight No LH 431 in Frankfurt and on 16-05-2009 at 11-50 PM landed in Hyderabad.    She could not trace out her two baggages on arrival in the Hyderabad air port and she lodged a complaint to the opposite Party there about missing of her said luggage. After two days the complainant has received one suit case from the Opposite Party which was totally damaged with no use.  The complainant had spent huge amounts for purchasing the same lost products before her departure from India. The complainant made number of calls to the Opposite Party to enquire about the missing baggage but the Opposite Party carelessly showed negligent attitude. The complainant personally approached the opposite party in the month of June, 2009 and evasive reply was given and no steps have taken to get back the missing luggage by the opposite Party.  On 07-07-2009 the complainant  got issued a legal notice  claiming Rs.3,00,000/- value of missing luggage Rs.50,000/- for  delivering damaged suit case and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, Inconvenience caused by the opposite party totally Rs.4,50,000/-. But the opposite party had paid Rs.70,000/- instead of  claim amount hence the complainant filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,80,000/- towards loss of goods..

3.      In support of the complainant contention they have filed the following documents, which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-5.

4.      On receipt of the notice the opposite party appeared by their General Power of Attorney Manjari Gauba and filed counter through her council and contended that the complaint is liable to dismiss on the basis that the opposite party does not have any branch office and no cause of action arose within the limits of the Hon’ble Forum and does not have jurisdiction to try the matter. The one of the checked in baggage was traced within less than 48 hours and delivered to the complainant at her residence in Khammam in perfect and full conditioned. The complainant had accepted the same without any protest, objection and demur, further stated that by virtue of Article 15.1 of the conditions of Carriers of the airlines are inter alia agreed by the party that in case of passengers accepts the delivery of the baggage un conditionally it shall be taken that it was delivered to the passengers in good conditions. As per clause 14.3.1 of the condition of the carriage of the opposite party in the event of the delay in delivery of checked in baggage to the maximum of 1000 special drawing rights equivalent to 1100/- EUR.  The complainant has not disclosed she has been paid Rs.74,656/- by the Opposite Party as a full and final settlement of the claim, the said amount was paid in  two parts viz. Rs.4,000/- as SOKO payment for missing baggage at Hyderabad air port on 16-5-2009 itself at the time of lodging of the property Opposite Party irregularities report and Rs.70,656 was paid through Cheque. The said cheque was accepted by the complainant without any protest, objection and demur and was subsequently en cashed. As per clause 14.3.2 of the conditions of carriage of the opposite party, If a passenger has made a special declaration at the time of check-in- of luggage then the passenger can benefit from higher liability limit, here the complainant has not made any special declaration about any of the items being carried in checked baggage nor paid any additional fee to increase the liability of opposite party. The clause 14.1.2 of conditions of carriage of opposite party airlines the liability shall not exceed the amount of proven damages under any circumstances, baggage being lost due to various technical or operational problems arising in baggage handle system all over the world and same cannot amount of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has filed this complaint after 10 months from the date of receiving the cheque amount with sole objection of pressurising the opposite party. The opposite party denied the compensation Rs.3,80,000/- and any other relief of the complainant and may be dismissed with exemplary cost.

5.      In support of opposite party contention filed the following documents which are marked as Exhibits B-1 to B-3.

6.     Upon perusing the material papers available on record, now the point that arose for consideration is,

1) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2) Whether the complainant is liable to be compensated under              

     Deficiency of service?

Point No. 1:-       

          The complainant has filed this complaint for adjudication before this Forum on 01-06-2010, this Forum has taken an objection for filing the complaint on the ground of the Territorial Jurisdiction and the complainant has complied the objection with a citation of case law reported in 2009 (3) ALT 634 D.B of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. held that a reply notice is also part of Cause of action.  The Opposite Party has delivered one missed luggage and also issued a cheque as their liability to the complainant address i.e. at Khammam for missing baggage thus in our view the cause of action arose in part in Khammam, as per the catena of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission it has been severally held that the interpretation of clauses of C.P Act has to be done liberally in favour of the consumer. Hence this Forum has jurisdiction to try the matter, the point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2:-

It is admitted fact by the both parties that the complainant boarded the opposite party airlines flight from Phoenix to Hyderabad on 15-05-2009 and exchanged in to other Opposite Party airline flight No. LH-431 in Frankfurt and on 16-05-2009 at 11-50 PM landed in Hyderabad.  She could not traced out her two baggages on arrival in the Hyderabad Airport and she lodged a complaint to the opposite party there about missing of her said luggage.   The one of the checked in baggage was traced within less than 48 hours and delivered to the complainant at her residence in Khammam, she had accepted the same without any protest, objection and demur.  By virtue of Article 15.1 of the conditions of Carriers of the Airlines are inter alia agreed by the parties that in case of passengers accepts the delivery of the  baggage un conditionally it shall be taken that it was delivered to the passengers in good conditions. She was paid Rs.4,000/- as SOKO payment for missing baggage at Hyderabad air port on 16-5-2009 itself at the time of lodging of the property irregularities report. As per clause 14.3.2 of the conditions of carriage of the opposite party that she has to made a special declaration at the time of check-in luggage then she can benefit from higher liability limit, but she has not file any document showing that she has made any special declaration about any of the items being carried in checked baggage and paid any additional fee to increase the liability of opposite party. The clause 14.1.2 of conditions of carriage of opposite party airlines reveals the liability shall not exceed the amount of proven damages under any circumstances. Rs.70,656/- was paid vide Cheque to the complainant by the opposite party for her lost luggage as per conditions of the carriage of opposite party airlines. The said cheque was accepted by the complainant without any protest, objection and demur and was subsequently encashed. She was paid by the said amount but for the loss of luggage. The Complainant being a student had called the opposite  party several times on phone and  in the month June of 2009 she has personally visited the opposite party office, the opposite party was reluctant and by vexing with the attitude of the opposite  party she got issued  legal notice to the opposite party on 07-07-2009 i.e. EX.A1.The opposite party after receiving of legal notice only settled the matter and issued cheque on 31-07-2009 for Rs.70,656/- which shows the opposite party has taken much time to settle the issue and caused mental agony to her.  The complainant is a student pursuing the studies in USA and has to return back, due to this incident she was in stress and mental agony, therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate to the complainant.  Hence, this point is answered accordingly against the opposite party.   

8.      In the result complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing inconvenience and mental agony and Rs.1,500/- towards the costs of the litigation within one month from the date of this order. 

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 21^st day of August, 2017.

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Member                    Member              President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

 Khammam.