Mr. K. Prabhakar V/S M/s Air India - Consumer Court Case

Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/615/06

M/s Air India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. K. Prabhakar - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. G. Sudha

07 Sep 2009

ORDER

First Appeal No. FA/615/06

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Visakhapatnam-II)

1. M/s Air India

Begumpet International Airport Hyderabad.

BEFORE:

PRESENT:

ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

HYDERABAD

F.A. 615/2006 against C.C 158/2005, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad.

Between:

M/s. Air India

Rep. by its Air Port Manager

International Airport

Shamshabad

Hyderabad. *** Appellant/

Op.

And

K. Prabhakar,

S/o. Late K. Seshachalam Naidu

Age: 66 years, Service in Jeddah

H.No. 208/A, Sanjeevaiahnagar Colony

West Maredpally, Secunderabad. *** Respondent/

Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. G. Sudha

Counsel for the Resp: M/s. G. Ravichandran

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party Air India against the order of the Dist. Forum awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs.

2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he travelled in appellant’s air flight boarded Jiddah on 22.12.2004 to reach Hyderabad with three baggages. However when he reached Hyderabad it delivered only two air baggages. He lodged a complaint followed by legal notice on 17.1.2005, however to no avail. The suitcase had contained many articles including cash, gold jewellery, bank pass books, cheque books, pass ports, demand draft for Rs. 1 lakh etc. Therefore, he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs being the value of articles besides compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony.

3) The appellant resisted the case. It admitted that the complainant had travelled to Hyderabad in their air flight and one of the baggages could not be traced out. They were unaware of the contents of the suit case. It is mandatory on the part of the passengers to declare the valuables, cash, jewellery etc before booking the baggage or boarding the flight. He did not declare any of the items. Therefore they have no liability to compensate for the value of the articles. According to Warsaw Convention and International practice they were liable to pay at US $ 20 per Kg., and not on the basis of items kept in the baggage unless the passenger declared the value of the goods. Therefore he was entitled to Rs. 27,000/- viz., 600 US $ since the weight of the suit case being 30 Kgs. Therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation or costs as there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4) The complainant filed the documents viz., passport, reports, notices etc.

5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant was entitled to value of the missing baggage, which the appellants itself agreed to pay, however in view of the mental agony suffered by the complainant it awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation besides costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

6) Aggrieved by the said decision, Air India preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It had awarded compensation without any evidence on record and contrary to the rules. Specific rules have been made wherein the complainant was entitled to Rs. 27,000/- towards loss of baggage. Therefore, it prayed that the appeal be allowed setting aside the compensation awarded towards mental agony and costs.

7) The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the Dist. Forum?

8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant travelled in the appellant air flight from Jiddah to Hyderabad wherein one of the baggages was missing. It is also not in dispute that the complainant did not declare that the suit case contained valuable articles, cash, jewellery etc. In fact, he could not furnish any proof that he kept jewellery, demand draft and cheque books and other articles. It is not known as to why the complainant did not declare any of those items which he was claiming. Having travelled in international flight, if really the suit case contained jewellery, cash, cheque book etc. he would not have kept undeclared before boarding the flight. It can be reasonably presumed that since it did not contain any of the valuable items he did not disclose or declare as contemplated in baggage rules.

9) The appellant had categorically stated in its counter that the rules stipulate that in case of missing of baggage, entails payment of US $ 20 per Kg. which it would pay. This fact was not disputed by the complainant, nor contradicted by placing air flight ticket. For the loss of luggage on 23.12.2004, he gave legal notice on 17.1.2005 and filed the complaint on 4.2.2005. He did not wait for the appellant Air India to settle the claim. In the grounds of appeal there was a categorical mention that even before the matter could be settled, he filed the complaint and therefore it cannot be said that he suffered mental agony.

10) The rules framed in this regard equally bind the complainant. He cannot turn round and claim more compensation. The complainant’s claim of compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs towards value of articles and Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony cannot be sustained as he could not substantiate as to how he could be entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs when he did not declare those items to the airlines authorities. No doubt a list of 27 articles said to have been kept in his suit case were appended to the complaint. However, there is no proof that those articles were kept in the suit case. When he did not declare he cannot claim. The Dist. Forum ought not to have awarded any compensation towards mental agony. What all he was entitled to under the rules was deposited by the appellant before this Commission by way of demand draft Dt. 10. 4. 2006 drawn in favour of this Commission. The complainant obviously to contain the claim of the appellant filed cross objections forgetting the fact that the rules of C.P.C. do not apply to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Whatever be the rules in this regard, since he was bound by Warsaw Convention, he was entitled to Rs. 27,000/- and the cross-objections filed by him is liable to be dismissed.

11) Though the appellant contends that the complainant ought not to have preferred the complaint as they were willing to settle the matter however, the appellant did not deposit the amount in the Dist. Forum on receipt of the notice. It did not pay the amount, till it preferred the appeal. Therefore the complainant is justified in invoking the jurisdiction of the Dist. Forum for recovery of the amount. Therefore, awarding of costs of Rs. 2,000/- was justified.

12) In the result the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- granted towards mental agony. Consequently, the complaint is allowed in part directing the appellant to pay Rs. 27,000/- payable as per the Warsaw Convention. The cost of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Dist. Forum is confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. The complainant is permitted to withdraw Rs. 27,000/- deposited by the appellant before this Commission while preferring the appeal. Time for payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Dist. Forum four weeks.