D.O.F. 05-04-2016
D.O.O.30-09-2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. Roy Paul : President
Smt. Molly Kutty Mathew. : Member
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2019
C.C.95/2015
Sandhya.K,
W/o. M.P. Ranjith,
Mavila Veedu, Complainant
Kozhummal (PO),
Karivellur,
Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv. Pramod Krishnnan)
1.Morning Star Travel Agency,
Opp. KSRTC, Perumba,
Payyanur – 670 307.
2. Air India Express,
Kozhikode International Airport,
Karipur, Malappuram.
Opposite parties
3. Manager,
Air India Express,
Kozhikode International Airport,
Karipur, Malappuram.
(Rep. by Adv. K.V. Vinodraj)
O R D E R
Smt. Molly Kutty Mathew, Member
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the relief of the loss of the baggage amounts to Rs.75,800 and compensation for mental agony and hardship amounts to Rs.50,000 to the complainant.
The gist of the complainant is that:
The complainant’s husband Mr. M.P. Ranjith is employed in Kuwait. The complainant had also went to Kuwait and resided along with her husband. On 14-08-2014 the complainant along with her husband returned to India by 2nd opposite party’s Air India Express Flight No. X-394. The ticket was booked through opposite party No.1 at their office at Payyanur on 15-08-14 the complainant and her husband landed at Karipur Airport by 2nd opposite party’s flight. The complainant’s goods were packed in three hardboard boxes and the luggage were numbered as KU-783475, 783476, 783477 and transported in opposite party’s No.2 flight verified the luggage and complainant founds that one of the box bearing No.783477 was missing. The box contained valuables worth Rs.75,800. Moreover the complainant’s husband’s name was written the box when the complainant realized that the box lost and she informed the customs at Kozhikode on 15-08-14 at about 7.00 hours and complaint was also lodged with the S.I. of Police, Police Aid Post on 15-08-14. Thereafter on 07-10-14 a detailed list of the articles lost to opposite party No.3. The complainant sent a letter dated 09-12-14 to opposite party No.3 to pay compensation to the complainant in respect of the lost luggage within one week of receipt of the letter. But opposite party No.3 has not cared to settle the claim. When the complainant filed a complainant for compensate the value for loss of the luggage to the opposite parties. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and the complainant approached the Forum with necessary reliefs.
The opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 appeared on summons. Opposite party No.1 was ex-parte. The complainant has no relief sought against opposite party No.1, the ticket was booked through opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 and 3 submitted their written version contenting that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them as alleged in the complaint. On 15-08-14 the complainant and her husband reached at Karipur Air Port she found that one of the boxes bearing No. 783477 was missing. The complainant informed the matter to opposite party No.2 and 3. Moreover a complaint was also lodged with Sub Inspector of Police, Police Aid Post on the same day. Opposite party No.2 had admitted that the complainant had travelled on the flight No. IX- 394 on 14-08-14 and on 15-08-14 the complainant and her husband reached at Karipur Air Post. Opposite party No.1 submits that as per Clause 17.2 of the General conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage, the liability of the carrier, i.e., Air India shall be limited to Rs.20,000 in case of loss of baggage. The liability of the carrier has been limited vide notification No. S.O. 142(E) issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India. Opposite party No.2 is not liable to compensate the complainant’s relief. Opposite party No.3 the Manager. Kozhikode International Air Port Karipur filed the version stating that opposite party No.3 is an unnecessary party and opposite party No.3 has facilitated to opposite party No.2 to operate from Calicut international Air port as per the Provisions of various enactments. Opposite party No.3 is owned by the Air port Authority of India. Moreover opposite party No.3 states that there is no consumer relationship with this complainant. Hence the Kozhikode International Air port is not liable to compensate the complainant as prayed for.
1.Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the
part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony evidence of PW1, the (power of Attorney holder of complainant, viz. Damodharan) and PW2 brother of complainant, Jithinlal examined as PW2. Ext. A1 to A9 marked on behalf of the complainant. The opposite party No.3 has examined as DW1. No documents marked on the side of opposite party.
For the sake of convenience the issues No.1 to 3 taken together for consideration.
Issue No. 1 to 3:
The complainant (power of Attorney holder, Damodharan) submitted his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint as PW1 and PW2.
On 14-08-14 the complainant along with her husband returned to India by 2nd opposite party’s Air India Express flight No. IX-394. On 15-08-2014 the complainant and her husband reached at Karipur Air Port. The complainant’s goods were packed in 3 hardboard boxes and one box bearing No. 783477 was missing. Immediately the complainant informed the matter to opposite party No.2 and 3. But opposite party No.2 and 3 not cared to settle the claim. The complainant also lodged the complaint to Sub Inspector of Police, Police Aid Post on 15-08-14. The complainant sent another letter dated 09-12-14 to opposite party No.3. to substantiate the complainant’s case to relied upon Ext.A1 to A9. But the complainant not to prove the articles which is lost from the baggage. Not to produce the bill to prove the case. In cross examination also the complainant not to proved the items which are lost from the baggage.
While opposite party No.2 con tented that the complainant not to state that the valuables in the baggage an no bill is produced for the same.
According to opposite party No.2 as per the Clause 17.2 of General Conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage, the liability of the carrier, i.e. Air India shall be limited to Rs.20,000 in case of loss of baggage. Opposite party No.3 states that there is no consumer relationship between complainant and opposite party No.3. Moreover opposite party No.3 is a statutory body governed by certain enactments and opposite party No.3 is not liable to the complainant as per the provisio0ns of the carriage by Air Act, 1972. As per Rule 18 of the carriage by Air Act 1972, the opposite party No.3 is not liable. So there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
On perusal of the pleadings, evidence, documents and arguments of both parties we the Forum hold that complainants one of the baggage lost (bearing No. 783477) but the complainant has not produced the bill of the articles. Hence the assessment about the loss of value from the articles cannot be ascertained for the purpose of calculation of compensation on the head. From the available evidence, it is clear that the complainant and her husband reached to Karipur Air Port on 15-08-14, in Ext.A1 to A3 substantiate the same. The complainant informed the matter to opposite party No.2 and 3. It is clear that in Ext. A4 to A9 of curse due to the loss of baggage the mental agony suffered by the complainant has to be considered. The opposite party is duly bound to protect the interest of the passengers by avoiding such kind of loss of baggage and other services. So we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2, Air India Express. Hence the issue No.1 found against the opposite party No.2 and accordingly answered.
Regarding the issue No.2, as discussed above complainant has not produced the bill regarding the loss articles and no documentary evidence regarding the value of the articles lost. So we the Forum could not assess the value of the lost articles. Admittedly by the complainant and her husband reached Karipur Air Post on 15-08-14 and one of her baggage lost in the Air Port. Such circumstances caused heavy hardship, mental agony and loss of money and peace. Hence the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation also. From the foregoing discussion we hold that the opposite party No.2, Air India Express is liable to pay Rs.20,000 to the complainant for the loss of baggage and opposite party No.2 and 3 are jointly to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation Rs.3,000 as the cost of the litigation to the complainant. The issue No. 2 & 3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part in the following manner.
1). The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 ( Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant towards the lost o baggage within 30 days of receipt of this order.
2). The opposite party No.2 and 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) jointly and severally to the complainant as compensation along with Rs.3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as litigation cost within the said 30 days.
In the opposite parties are failed to comply the order within the stipulated period, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
ROY PAUL MOLY KUTTY MATHEW
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Copy of passport of complainant.
A2. Copy of pass port of complainant’s husband’s.
A3. Air Ticket issued by O.P. No.1.
A4. Copy of Property Irregularity Report.
A5. Copy of complaint lodged by complainant before S.I. Of Police
dated 15-08-14.
A6.(1) Postal Receipt dated 19-08-14.
(2). Copy of notice issued by complain ’s husband to Manager,
Calicut Air Port dated 15-08-14.
A7. Copy of list of articles lost given to O.P. dated 07-10-14.
A8. Copy of letter issued by complainant to Manager. Kozhikode Air Port
dated 09-12-14.
A9. Postal Receipt.
A10.Power of Attorney.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Damodharan.K. (Power of Attorney)
PW2. Jithinlal.K.
Witness examined for opposite party
DW1. Dileep Kumar.S
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
