KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO.876/2011

JUDGMENT DATED: 30.06.2012

PRESENT

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. A. RADHA                                       : MEMBER

Airport Authority of India,

R/by the Airport Director,

Calicut International Airport,            : APPELLANT

Karipur, Malappuram,

R/by it Director.

(By Adv:Sri. V. Santharam & G.S.Prakash)

          Vs.

1.      Moroly Ali, S/o  Patumakutty,

Nangam Veettil, Feroke,

Feroke Cpllege.P.O, Kozhikode,

R/by his Power of Attorney Holder,

K.P.Abdulla Koya, S/o Saidalavi,

Kolancherythodi House, Chungam,

Kallithodi Via, Feroke.

(By Adv for R1: Sri.A. Yahia Khan)

                                                          : RESPONDENTS

2.      M/s Oman airways,

R/by its District Sales manager,

1^st floor, Sky Building, Opp. Hotel Hyson,

Mavoor Road, Calicut.

(By Adv:Sri.A Abdul Kharim & Narayan.R)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellant was the 1^st opposite party in CC.234/09 in the CDRF, Malappuram.  The 1^st respondent in this appeal was the complainant.  He alleged that he was employed abroad with a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month.  He came to the native place at Feroke in Malappuram District on 6.3.2009 on leave for sixty days.   To rejoin his job on 9.5.09, he reached Calicut Airport for his return journey on 6.5.09 at 4 am.   He took the boarding pass and proceeded to security check.  He put his suitcase for security check up.  Then the personnel in charge required him to affix the “check in sticker” on the wallet.  This was against the normal procedure in his experience.  When he came back within 2 minutes the suitcase put up for security check was found missing.  Immediately he lodged a complaint with the opposite parties but they did not take any action to find out the lost suitcase.  Since they did not take any action, the complainant had to cancel the journey because the important documents for joining office were in the suitcase. The CC TV could have pointed out the culprit within the minimum time.  That was not done.  The suitcase was containing the letter to rejoin the job, trade certificate, experience certificate, certificate from Ideal Holistic Hospital and Research centre for completing 3 months training in acupressure massage, bachelor of Physiotherapy certificate from Mangalore University and 1750 US dollars.  The complainant sent notice through his lawyer demanding compensation from the opposite parties on 8.5.09.  On 11.5.09 his baggage was received from the opposite party but on verification he found that the baggage was completely damaged and was partially opened.  All the documents and 1750 US dollars kept in suitcase were lost.  This was intimated to the delivering agency.  Since the experience certificate and other certificates were lost the complainant is unable to get another job.  There is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant claimed Rs.4.32.lakhs towards loss of income Rs.2.lakhs towards the loss of his valuables and 1750 US dollars and costs of Rs.5000/-.

2.      Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed separate version.  The appellant/1^st opposite party contended that it is a public sector unit (Airport Authority) and it provides space and infrastructure for airlines and airline operators.  The passengers are being handled by the concerned airlines.  So, the 1^st opposite party has no control over agencies like customs, immigration, airlines etc.  At present all the hand bags like brief case, suitcase, polythene bags, jute bags, even waist wallet are to be tagged by the passengers before coming to security check.  For the convenience of passengers opposite party No.1 provides trays to keep this kind of wallet, ladies bag, mobile, purse and other small brief cases with token system.  So, every passenger can put their small items in the tray before screening.  If the complainant had come with proper tagging in his wallet he could have avoided this situation at security hold area.  There were 3 other flights being operated at that time.  There were about 400 passengers at SHA and few passengers were in the aircraft and security check was also going on.  So, it would not be simple to check all individuals belongings to find out the complainant’s suitcase.  In this situation, the only hope was that the passenger who took the suitcase would hand over it at the destination point.  Opposite party No.1 after receiving the complaint conducted preliminary enquiry with CISF persons and Airlines Agencies. After getting permission from the Airport Director of Calicut for reviewing the CCTV which is purely meant for security purpose, he replayed the CCTV and found out that the passenger named Sasidharan.C.M mistakenly left with complainants suitcase.  Opposite party No.1 informed this to opposite party No.2 and advised to inform their counter part abroad to return the suitcase as soon as he handed over the same to them.  Then opposite party No.1 informed the complainant to collect it from Air India Express baggage service.  Opposite party No.1 also gave the name and address of the passenger who took and left with his briefcase.  The suitcase was delivered to the complainant on 11.5.09 within 5 days after missing.  Therefore the complainant has not suffered any loss or injury and he is not entitled to any damage.

3.      Opposite party No.2 contended that the complainant had booked a ticket for journey from Calicut to Bahrain by Oman Airways on 6.5.09. The baggage was not tagged. Nor was it entrusted with opposite party No.2 for carriage.  He later lodged a complaint stating that his baggage was lost while he kept it in the security counter.  The complainant alone has to be blamed for his own negligence.  In the light of statutory provisions opposite party No.2 is ready to pay to the complainant a sum equivalent to 400 US dollars for amicable settlement even though opposite party No.2 is not liable towards the complainant.  The complainant has not come forward to accept this amount.

4.      Before the CDRF, Alappuzha the power of attorney holder of the complainant gave evidence as PW1.  Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the complainant.  One witness was examined on behalf of opposite party No.1 and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on his side.

5.      The Forum after considering the evidence and arguments advanced held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  However the Forum limited the maximum liability for loss of baggage in view of rule 22(3) of 2^nd schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 to 400 US dollars.  The Forum quantified this amount at Rs.19,200/- and directed opposite party No.2 to pay the same.  The Forum also directed the 1^st opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Costs of Rs.3000/- was directed to be paid by opposite party No.2.

6.      It was submitted at the time of arguments that the 2^nd opposite party has satisfied that part of the order of the Forum against it.  Only the 1^st opposite party has come up in appeal.  So also the complainant has not sought enhancement of the compensation.  So the correctness of the finding of the Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is assailed by the 1^st opposite party only in this appeal.  According to the 1^st opposite party it only provides space and infrastructure for the airline operators.  The contention that the 1^st opposite party has no control over agencies like customs, immigration, airlines etc may be correct.  But it is admitted that 1^st opposite party provides trays to keep things like ladies bag wallet etc during security check.  Obviously security check and aspects related to security are matters for the appellant to look after.  It is not disputed that it was during security check the complainant had to be away for a short while as he was directed to affix check in sticker on his wallet.  On his return his suitcase was found missing.  Admittedly it was recovered 5 days afterwards from another passenger.  It is admitted that the suitcase went missing during security check.  The officers who were engaged in security check had a duty to take care of the suitcase when the passenger temporarily went away to take check in sticker and the 1^st opposite party can not shirk that responsibility.  It is evident from the pleadings that there was delay in replaying the CCTV to locate the culprit.  The contention that CCTV is purely meant for security purpose is a lame excuse and obviously the permission from Airport Director, Calicut to replay CCTV was obtained after some delay.  The allegation that on the suitcase being returned it was found damaged and partly opened is not denied.  Under the above circumstances,  there is no error in the finding of the Forum below that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party No.1.  In view of the fact that opposite party No.2 satisfied that part of the order of the Forum against them no other question arises for determination.  In view of the above conclusions the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 A. RADHA          : MEMBER

VL.