BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 190/2007 Filed on 24.08.2007

Dated : 31.03.2011

Complainant:

S. Yovas, residing at Karaikkattuvilai Veedu, Kollarai, Kulasekharam Post, Kanyakumari District.

(By adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan)

Opposite parties :

1. Qatar Airways represented by Managing Director, P.O. Box: 22550, Doha-Qatar.

    

2. Regional Manager, Qatar Airways, Trivandrum International Airport, Trivandrum.

(By adv. Eugine Fernandez)

This O.P having been heard on 03.02.2011, the Forum on 31.03.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant travelled by opposite parties' flight No. QR 129 and No. QR 240 from Abudabi to Thiruvananthapuram on 27.03.2007 and on 29.03.2007, that during departure at Abu Dhabi Airport the complainant's baggage was duly checked in and the baggage contained several articles including electrical equipments, Nokia mobile, medical equipments, Household items, food items, Ornaments etc. worth Rs. 2 lakhs, that after entering in the flight he was informed that there was no connecting flight from Qatar to Trivandrum, that he was asked to get down at Qatar airport. He was informed that the connected flight would be only on 29.03.2007 to Trivandrum, that his programme was completely cancelled due to the delay in flight, that opposite parties did not provide any accommodation to the complainant, that later, complainant reached Trivandrum on 29.03.2007 and when he was about to collect his bag, he found it was missed, that immediately he reported the matter to the 2^nd opposite party, but no proper reply was given to him. Finally complainant sent an advocate notice on 26.07.2007. On receipt of the said notice, opposite party asked him to come to Trivandrum office to collect the missed baggage from the 2^nd opposite party. Complainant reached Trivandrum by taxi on 11.08.2007, but 2^nd opposite party did not deliver the missed baggage. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the value of the missed items contained in the missed baggage and Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation.

Opposite parties filed version contending interalia that complainant travelled by QR 129 in the sector Abudhabi-Doha-Trivandrum on 27^th March 2007 and 29^th March 2007, that complainant carried with him 2 baggages weighing 32 kgs as per PIR, that the connection flight from Doha to Trivandrum was delayed due to act of God, that in the next connection flight the passenger was boarded and complainant reached Trivandrum, that opposite parties are not aware of the contents in the baggage as it was not declared by the complainant at the time of check in, that as per the General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage, Article 9, “The passenger shall not include in checked baggage fragile or perishable, money, jewellery, precious metals, silverware, negotiable papers, securities or other valuable business documents, passport or other identification documents or samples”, that complainant checked in 2 baggages weighing 32 kg and lost one baggage weighing 10 kg, that the passenger was given food and accommodation in the resting place, that the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 20 US Dollar per kg unless the passenger or the consignor has made at the time when the baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires, that as per rules, the liability of the opposite parties to the complainant for the loss of baggage is considered as 10 kg and an amount of 200 US Dollar in total was offered to him, that complainant was not willing to accept the offer, that opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation? If so, at what amount?

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P12. In rebuttal opposite party has filed proof affidavit.

Points (i) & (ii):- There is no dispute on the point that complainant was booked for Abu Dhabi-Doha-Trivandrum flight of the opposite party on 27.03.2007. There is no dispute on the point that complainant boarded the flight from Abu Dhabi with 2 baggages. There is no dispute on the point that complainant was not provided with the connection flight. Admittedly, complainant could travel to Trivandrum from Dubai only on 29.03.2007. It has been the case of the complainant that he was stranded in the airport where no accommodation was given by the opposite parties. Admittedly, one of his baggages was missing on arrival at Trivandrum. It is argued by the complainant that the weight of the missing baggage was 25 kg. Complainant's evidence consists of oral testimony and Exts. P1 to P12. Ext. P1 is the copy of the passport. Ext. P2 is the copy of the ticket and boarding pass dated 27.03.2007. On perusal of the boarding pass it is seen that complainant boarded with 2 bags weighing 32 kg. Ext. P3 is the copy of the passenger property questionnaire. As per Ext. P3 flight No QR 129 dated 27.03.2007 from Abu Dhabi to Trivandrum, QR 240 dated 29.03.2007 from Doha, total number of pieces checked : 2, Total weight of checked baggage : 32, No. of pieces missing: 1, estimated weight of missing piece : 25 kg, missing articles are described in Ext. P3 which comes to around 17790 UAE Dhs. Ext. P4 is the copy of the advocate notice addressed to Qatar Airways. Ext. P5 is the copy of the advocate notice. Ext. P6 is the copy of the postal receipt. Ext. P7 is the copy of the postal receipt. Ext. P8 is the copy of the acknowledgement card. Ext. P9 is the receipt issued by BSNL. Ext. P10 is the copy of the letter addressed to Qatar Airways. Ext. P11 is the Form TSC trip sheet of contract carriages. Ext. P12 is the letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Customs by Airport authority to issue the landing certificate to complainant. Complainant has not produced any material showing the articles contained in the missed baggage. Though complainant has mentioned the missing articles in Ext. P3 passenger property questionnaire, the same is not supported by any other materials like bills, vouchers etc. The burden is on the part of the complainant to show that such and such items were contained in the lost baggage. Further it is argued by the complainant that the missing baggage has a weight of 25 kg. It is rebutted by opposite parties by submitting that the missing baggage has only 10 kg. Admittedly, complainant boarded the flight with two baggages having a weight of 32 kg. Nowhere in the complaint is it mentioned that he has travelled with 2 baggages and missed baggage has a weight of 25 kg. It is not clear whether complainant has remitted supplementary charge or whether complainant has declared the value of the contents of the missing baggage. As regards the weight of the missing baggage, there is no specific material, we fix the weight of the missing baggage as 20 kg. According to opposite parties there was delay in connection flight which was due to the act of God. Opposite party has not disclosed whether it is due to weather constraints, or due to technical snag. The burden is on the part of the opposite party to establish that the delay in connection flight was beyond their control. No material furnished by opposite parties to substantiate that aspect. Further it has been contended by the complainant that no arrangements were made by the opposite parties to the stranded passengers on 28^th March and 29^th March 2007. Opposite party has contended that the passenger was given food and accommodation in the resting place. Opposite party has never furnished any material to that aspect. Complainant might have suffered a lot due to delay in the connection flight. He was left stranded in the airport for 2 days for which opposite party cannot escape from their liability to compensate the complainant. Complainant has never pleaded in the complaint that the loss of baggage was due to wilful negligence on the part of the opposite parties nor has it proved. Therefore we find the loss of baggage cannot be due to the negligence of the opposite party. In view of the above discussions and evidence available on record we deem that complainant is entitled to get 400 US Dollar (20 US Dollar x 20) on account of loss of baggage together with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay the complainant 400 US Dollar (converted into rupees at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of this order) along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of March 2011.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 190/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - S. Yovas

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of the passport

P2 - Copy of the ticket and boarding pass dated 27.03.2007

P3 - Copy of the passenger property questionnaire

P4 - Copy of the advocate notice addressed to Qatar Airways

P5 - Copy of the advocate notice

P6 - Copy of the postal receipt

P7 - Copy of the postal receipt

P8 - Copy of the acknowledgement card

P9 - Receipt issued by BSNL dated 16.08.2007

P10 - Copy of letter addressed to Qatar Airways

P11 - Form TSC trip sheet of contract carriages.

P12 - Copy of the letter addressed to Assistant Commissioner of

Customs by Airport Authority.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT