A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 248/2008 against C.C 657/2007, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
1) Air India
Rep. by its Airport Manager
Room No. 202-203
Rajiv Gandhi Terminal
Hyderabad Air Port.
Hyderabad.
2) Air India
Rep. by its Principal Officer
Room No. 202-203
Rajiv Gandhi Terminal
Hyderabad Air Port.
Hyderabad. . *** Appellant/
O.Ps.
And
Hyder Ali Shoukat
S/o. M. Ali,
R/o. 22-2-698, Panjethsn Colony
Darul Shafa, Hyderabad
Rep. by his GPA holder
Mir Mohammad Sadaq
S/o. Late Mir Mohammed Baquer
Age: 72 years, R/o. 22-2-698
Panjethsn Colony, Darul Shafa
Hyderabad *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. G. Sudha
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. A. K. Ahmed
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
This is an appeal preferred by airlines against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to refund Rs. 15,990/- besides Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a ticket from the appellant airlines to travel along with his luggage from Dammam in Soudi Arabia to Hyderabad under confirmed ticket on 29.12.2006. After he reached the airport, and when he was about to take boarding card he was asked to check locks of his baggage. When he moved towards baggage counter and by the time he returned he was informed that the flight was already full. When protested the appellants reissued a confirmed ticket from Dammam to Hyderabad via Dubai and Mumbai and thereby instead of journey of 4 hours it took 48 hours to reach destination. He was put to great inconvenience and stress. When he reached Hyderabad his baggage was lost in transit and could not be traced. In fact the baggage contains family album besides 15 gold bangles, clothes and other articles. This was all due to negligence of the appellants for which he issued notice. However, it has enclosed a cheque for Rs. 15,990/- representing the amount towards the baggage. In fact, he lost the jewellery and articles worth Rs. 4 lakhs. He suffered mental agony which he quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs, and filed the complaint for recovery of the said amount with costs.
3) The appellants airlines filed counter alleging that the Dist. Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, and equally the complaint was bad for non-joinder of travel agency from which he had purchased the ticket. Since the flight was overbooked at Dammam itself the complainant was re-routed from Dammam-Dubai-Mumbai-Hyderabad. It denied that it was asked to check locks of the baggage and that when he left, another person was given boarding pass. He reported loss of baggage after reaching Hyderabad. He did not declare the gold jewellery in his declaration. As per the baggage rules and Industry’s practice the loss was calculated @ 20 US $ for 18 Kgs equivalent to Rs. 15,990/-, and the same was sent through cheque. The complainant
returned it without receiving it. He was not entitled to the claim unless he declares the same. The regulations do not permit the claim towards jewellery. The claim towards mental agony etc. was highly exorbitant. It has issued the tickets for him to travel safely, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A14 marked, while the appellants did not file any document or affidavit evidence.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant was entitled to Rs. 15,990/- towards loss of baggage as per baggage rules. In view of the fact that he had confirmed ticket however he was not allowed to travel instead unnecessarily made him to go to different places and ultimately reached the destination after four days entitled to Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the airlines preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that it has already sent a cheque for an amount of Rs. 15,990/- which the complainant did not receive. Apart from it, ‘due to exigencies and over booking’, he could not be carried in the schedule flight. Awarding Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation is unsustainable, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased a confirmed ticket Ex. A1 from Dammam to Hyderabad. It is also not in dispute that the complainant could not travel on the said date in the flight for which he purchased the ticket solely on the ground that the appellants could not accommodate him due to ’ exigencies and over booking.’ The appellants could not expatiate the reasons for such an over booking. It could not even state as to the exigencies which made the appellants in not issuing the boarding pass even after purchase of a confirmed ticket. Instead, admittedly, the appellants issued a air ticket due to which he was made to take circuitous route for four days. In fact had he been accommodated in the aircraft for which he had purchased the ticket he could have reached Hyderabad within four hours. Thus he was made to travel from Dammam-Dubai on 29.12.2006. He was made to wait at Dubai air port. On 30.12.2006 he was taken from Dubai to Mumbai. Again he was made to wait at Mumbai for some time and later he was made to travel from Mumbai to Hyderabad. In the process it took three days for him to reach Hyderabad. The complainant alleges that he was hypertensive as well as diabetic evidenced under reports Ex. A9. Due to this he had suffered mental tension, physical stress etc.
8) Though the complainant alleges that he was carrying 15 gold bangles and two gold sets handed over to him by his friends and other articles worth Rs. 4 lakhs he could not mention as to why he did not reveal the baggage particulars, more so, when he was carrying jewellery. Had he declared these ornaments, undoubtedly, he would be entitled to the said amount. The rules in regard to liability for loss of baggage is as follows :
“Liability for loss, or damage to baggage is limited as follows unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid.
(i) for most international travel (including domestic portions of international journeys) to approximately US $ 9.07 per pound ( US $ 20.00 per Kilo) for checked baggage and US $ 400 per passenger for unchecked baggage.
(ii) for travel wholly between US points. Federal rules require any limit on an airline’s baggage liability to be at least US $ 1,250 per passenger. Excess valuation may be declared on certain types of valuable articles. Carriers assume no liability for fragile or perishable articles.”
9) For reasons best known he did not declare gold jewellery. Therefore he was entitled to US $ 20 per Kilo. Accordingly the appellants had sent Rs. 15,990/- towards 18 Kgs loss equivalent to US $ The complainant did not receive obviously he intends to get the amount covered under gold bangles also which he was not entitled as he did not declare. In fact the very appellants itself sent a cheque for the said amount which the complainant did not receive and therefore awarding of this amount cannot be said to be irregular.
10) The appellants mainly contends that award of compensation at Rs. 50,000/- was on higher side. No reason was assigned for awarding such a compensation.
11) The complainant could prove that he was a diabetic and hypertensive evidenced under Ex. A9 lab report, Ex. A10 medical report, and Ex. A11 laboratory request. The complainant was made to unnecessarily travel for 3 days. It is not only a case where he lost his baggage but also the status of his confirmed ticket. Having issued confirmed ticket, it ought to have accommodated the complainant without giving lame excuses. The so called excuses of exigencies etc. were not even established. The complainant suffered an untold misery which he cannot express in words. The complainant was taken from one country after another without knowing when he was reaching his destination. A reputed airlines like appellants ought not to have put the passengers to inconvenience. Selling confirmed tickets and denying boarding pass is obviously to see that the passenger may not travel in any other airline. It is unfair trade practise. Putting a passenger with inconvenience and asking him to stay in airports of different countries would undoubtedly cause mental trauma and could be compensated only by compensation. It cannot turn round and contend that it had accommodated in one airlines or the other. It made the complainant to suffer for three days. Considering the circumstances and health condition of the complainant compensation of Rs. 50,000/- cannot be said to be high. It is reasonable and modest. The complainant did not prefer any cross-appeal complaining inadequacy of compensation. Considering the nature of the complaint, and deficiency in service attributed to airlines, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Dist. Forum was just and adequate. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
12) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
LADY MEMBER
3) _________________________________
MALE MEMBER
Dt. 21. 04. 2009.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
