BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 424/2000 Filed on 03.08.2000<br /> Dated : 16.08.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> Dr. G.C. Gopala Pillai, Managing Director, KINFRA, T.C 14/1026, Vellyambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.Air India Ltd., Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 represented by its Managing Director.<br /> <br /> 2.Manager, Air India Ltd., Mishandled Baggage Section, Chatrapathi Sivaji International Airport, Sahar, Mumbai. <br /> <br /> (By adv. S. Reghukumar)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 28.12.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 19.07.2008, the Forum on 16.08.2008 delivered the following: <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA: MEMBER<br /> The complaint has been filed by Dr. G.C. Gopala Pillai against Air India alleging the following: The complainant travelled from Paris to Mumbai by Air India flight as part of his official duty and when he reached Mumbai on 30.06.1999 it was found that out of the two checked in baggages only one had reached Mumbai. The authorities informed that the missing checked in baggage was not even despatched from Paris. The complainant contends that the said missing baggage contained valuable documents. The complainant had to settle and finalise many things but this could not be done due to the non-availability of the said baggage which contained the agreements which were executed by him at Italy etc. The bag reached India belatedly on 08.07.1999 at Thiruvananthapuram and as a result complainant had suffered huge loss and damage and was put to extreme mental and physical pressure. The opposite parties failed to comply the demands of the complainant made on this behalf. In the reply opposite parties have admitted their lapse and negligence. Hence this complaint for compensation for deficiency in service and costs. <br /> Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that out of the two checked in baggages of the complainant, who travelled to Mumbai in flight AI 142, on 29.06.1999, only one baggage weighing 14 kgs was delivered to him on his arrival at Mumbai and the other baggage weighing 6 kgs was missing in that flight. The missing piece had not been loaded in the aircraft, for reasons beyond the control of Air India and the officers at the airport. This baggage was traced out and then sent to Mumbai and then to Thiruvananthapuram and was delivered to the complainant on 07.07.1999. Some slight damage had been caused to the bottom of the bag, from where the wheels were missing. The complainant, by letter dated 26.07.1999 claimed Rs. 150/-, the amount he had to spend for rectifying the damage and this amount was sent to him by cheque dated 31.08.1999. At that time the complainant had no grievance of any other loss or damage. Air India is not aware of the contents of the baggages. Apart from making a vague, wild allegation regarding the contents of the delayed baggage, no details have been furnished by the complainant. According to the complainant, the travel undertaken by him was part of his official duty and hence the complainant would not and could not suffer any personal damages or loss as alleged. It was not due to any negligence or lapse on the part of Air India, that the carriage of the bag was delayed. If for any reason, this Forum takes the view that the complainant is entitled to any relief, in this proceedings, the relevant provisions in the Carriage by Air Act and schedules thereunder, especially those in the Regulations 19 & 22 in the second schedule have to be applied in fixing the quantum of compensation. <br /> Both parties have filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked on the part of the complainant and Exts. D1 to D4 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties. <br /> The issues that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether the complainant is estopped from claiming any amount?<br /> (ii)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties entitling the complainant for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?<br /> Point (i):- The opposite parties have admitted that the missing baggage of the complainant was not loaded in the AI 142 flight in which the complainant was travelling. But the same was traced out and delivered to the complainant on 07.07.1999. The opposite parties have further stated that in response to ext. D1 dated 26.07.1999 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties, the opposite parties have issued a cheque for Rs. 150/- dated 31.08.1999 in full and final settlement of the claim. In Ext. D1, the complainant has demanded reimbursement of Rs. 150/-from the opposite parties towards the repair charge for the damage caused to the above mentioned missing baggage. Ext. D3 dated 02.09.1999 reveals the issuance of the said amount vide cheque dated 26.07.1999. in Ext. D1 it is evident that the claim made by the complainant is exclusively with regard to the repairs made on the damaged suit case. The complainant has not made any other claim with regard to the delay and compensation for the same in Ext. D1. Ext. D1 pertains to reimbursement of the expense incurred towards repairing the damage caused to the bag and the Ext. D3 is towards full and final settlement of this particular claim. In the above circumstance we have no difficulty to hold that the complainant is not barred from filing this complaint for compensation. <br /> Point (ii):- The opposite parties do not deny the delay caused in delivering the baggage belonging to the complainant. The opposite parties contend that the missing baggage was not loaded in the aircraft for reasons beyond the control of Air India and the officers at the airport. The opposite parties have delivered the missing baggage to the complainant on 07.07.1999 i.e; after a delay of 7 days. There is no dispute with regard to the same. At this juncture what is to be ascertained is whether the delay caused by the opposite parties are justifiable. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to corroborate their contention that the delay had occurred due to reasons beyond their control. Without any evidence to substantiate the case of the opposite party, the opposite parties cannot simply evade their liability of not delivering the baggage to the complainant in time. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the opposite parties have failed to prove that the delay was not intentional and it had occurred due to reasons beyond their control. Hence for the above negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant is to be compensated. <br /> <br /> The complainant does not have a case that the articles in the baggage are missing. His grievance is that, due to the late arrival of the baggage, the complainant who is the M.D of KINFRA could not deliver immediate and time bound replies to various authorities at Thiruvananthapuram in connection with the agreements which were executed by him at Italy since the said baggage contained valuable documents pertaining to the same. But the complainant has not declared the contents of the baggage, its value etc. to the authorities before checking in. In the absence of any declaration or evidence to establish the contents and the importance of the contents in the disputed baggage, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the value of the baggage and the consequential loss sustained by the complainant. As to what the baggage contained there is no evidence. There is no evidence as to the nature and importance of the contents alleged to be in the baggage. But, any way there is admittedly a delay of 7 days. Taking all the above into consideration we find that the complainant has to be compensated for the delay and an amount of Rs. 5000/- is found reasonable for the same. The complainant is also found entitled for an amount of Rs. 1000/- towards costs of the proceedings. <br /> In the result, the opposite parties are ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards costs of the complaint within two months failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% from the date of order till payment. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th August 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD, <br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 424/2000<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Original boarding pass of Flight AI 142 dated 29 June for AIR <br /> FRANCE. <br /> P2 - Photocopy of legal notice dated 23.08.1999 issued to the opposite party. <br /> P3 - Photocopy of reply notice dated 30.08.1999.<br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> D1 - Photocopy of letter dated 26.07.1999 sent by the complainant to the opposite party.<br /> D2 - Photocopy of letter dated 13.08.1999 to the complainant by the opposite party.<br /> D3 - Photocopy of letter dated 02.09.1999 sent to the complainant by the Accounts Manager of Air India. <br /> D4 - Photocopy of damage report with Flight Date – AF 2979/29June/AI 142/29 June.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT