DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 292 of 08-05-2014

Decided on 21-05-2015

Amrinder Singh Jassal S/o S. Baljit Singh, aged 26 years, R/o V.P.O. Sheikhpura, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

1. M/s. British Airways, P.O. No. 5610 (S506) Sudbury, Suffolk C010 2 PG (UK) through Managing Director (Deleted vide order dated 16-5-14).

2. M/s. British Airways, 11^th Floor, Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi 110 001 through its Managing Director/Manager

3. Advit International, 10/11 Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi – 60 through its MD/Manager (Deleted vide order dated 20-1-15).

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Sh. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Present :

For the Complainant : Sh. Amrinder Singh, complainant in person.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for OP No. 2

O R D E R

M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is permanent resident of village Sheikhpura, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. He is having passport No. 1804380. He had gone to UK on study visa. After completion of studies, he was to return to India. It is alleged that OP No. 1 is running Air Service for public by charging fare on international basis and have its offices and agents throughout the World including in Glasgow (UK) as well as in India (OP No. 2). OP No. 2 assures prompt and good air service for passengers coming to India and also provide 46 Kg luggage per ticket/per passenger till destination. It is further pleaded that complainant got booked passenger ticket of OP No. 2 on 27^th March, 2014 through its authorized agent Kohli Travels Glasgow by paying Pounds 420 i.e. Rs. 42,000/- from Glasgow to New Delhi via London for 8^th April, 2014 and reached Delhi on 9^th April, 2014. It is alleged that before boarding the Airplane/Flight BA1489 (then changed to BA-257 from London), the complainant handed over his luggage containing two bags duly locked weighing 23 kg and 18.50 Kg, worth Rs. 1,27,400/- to the employees of OP No. 1. OP No. 2 promised to deliver the luggage to the complainant on landing at International Indira Gandhi Airport, Delhi. It is alleged that OPs mishandled luggage of the complainant. When the luggage of the complainant was not available, OP No. 2 gave file Ref. No. DEL BA 10265 Tag No. BA 708896, 708897 as the same was not available on his coming to Delhi. It is further case of complainant that luggage was sent to his house situated in village Shiekhpura through messenger of OP No. 3 Manoj Kumar. It was in broken condition. The luggage was missing from it. The luggage was opened by the complainant in the presence of his father and other respectables as well as Manoj Kumar of OP No. 3 on 11-4-2014. The complainant alleged that due to negligence act of OP No. 1, complainant suffered loss of Rs. 1,27,400/-. The complainant requested OPs through e-mails, time and again, to pay the loss in question caused by it, but to no effect. It is alleged that OPs are deficient in service and have caused loss of Rs. 1,27,400/- i.e. valuable articles of the complainant due to negligence, carelessness of their staff. The complainant has also suffered mental agony, frustration and has claimed compensation for this to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to Rs. 1,27,400/- being the entire amount of articles. Hence, this complaint.

2. It is relevant to mention that subsequently name of OP No. 1 was deleted on the statement of complainant got recorded on 16-5-14.

3. Upon notice, OP No. 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In written version, OP No. 2 raised preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that none of the OPs are resident of or work for gain in District Bathinda. The jurisdiction in all complaints against Airlines, which are covered by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, is governed by Rule 33(1) of Schedule 3 to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. M/s. British Airways is not domiciled at Bathinda. It does not have its principal place of business at Bathinda. Ticket was admittedly purchased at Glasgow. Bathinda is not the place of destination. The Flight of OPs was destined for New Delhi. Hence, the courts at Bathinda would not be the court of jurisdiction.

4. On merits also, OP No. 2 controverted all the material averments. It is pleaded that OP No. 2 offer service of transport by air for passengers and cargo and the passengers are entitled to a free baggage allowance the weight whereof depends on the class of their travel and on the destination of the passenger. It is not disputed that complainant availed the service of OPs and travelled from Glasgow to New Delhi via London as per his tickets. It is admitted that complainant checked in 2 bags at Glasgow. However, it is denied that any declaration as to contents of bags was made by the complainant at Glasgow, prior to checking-in or the bags checked-in by the complainant contained the articles worth Rs. 1,27400/- as detailed in Annexure 'A' of the complaint. It is denied that any promise was made by OP No. 2 to deliver the bags of complainant on landing at Delhi airport immediately. The carriage of passengers by answering OP is subject to following terms and conditions as stipulated on the ticket :

   “NOTICE

   Carriage and other services provided by the carrier are subject to conditions of contract which are hereby incorporated by reference. These conditions may be obtained from the issuing carrier. The detailed conditions are also easily accessible to all passengers/public on the website of OPs. As per article 8i 3) of the Conditions of Carriage, it is clearly stipulated as follows :

   “We will carry your checked baggage, whenever possible, on the same aircraft as you, unless we decide for safety, security or operational reasons to carry it on another flight. If we carry your checked baggage on another flight we will deliver it to you, unless the law says you must be present from customs clearance.”

   Therefore, as per these conditions, the passenger is put to notice of the possibility that his baggage may not be carried on the same flight as the passenger himself and may be carried on a subsequent flight, if circumstances so warrant. Therefore, the averments of the complainant that employees of the OP promised to deliver the checked baggage of the complainant to him immediately upon landing at the New Delhi airport is entirely false and without any basis.

5. It is denied that baggage was mishandled. It is further added that on account of a short connecting time of 1 hour 55 minutes between the flights from Gasgow-London and London-New Delhi, the baggage of the complainant could not be loaded on Flight No. BA 257 from London to New Delhi. In these circumstances, the baggage of the complainant was received at New Delhi on 10-4-2014 i.e. one day after the arrival of complainant at New Delhi. The bags were also cleared through customs at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and were sent by courier to the address of the complainant as provided by him at the time of lodging his missing bags complaint. These bags were delivered to the complainant within 2 days of his arrival at New Delhi. The bags were also delivered at his residence ensuring that the complainant was not put to any expense whatsoever in receiving his bags. It is denied that bags were delivered in a broken condition and any luggage was missing from the bags. It is again denied that loss of Rs. 1,27,400/- or of any other amount was suffered by the complainant on account of any act whatsoever on the part of OP. OP has also placed reliance on article 8(f) of the conditions of carriage. This provision is reproduced as under :-

   Article 8(f)

   “Fragile or perishable items must not be packed in baggage checked into the hold. You must not include in your checked baggage fragile or perishable items or items of special value such as: money, jewellery, precious metals, computer, personal electronic devices, share certificates, bonds and other valuable documents, business documents or passports and other identification documents.”

   It is also asserted that claim of Rs. 1,27,400/- based upon the alleged loss of missing articles such as Cell phone, Camera, Watch, Shaving machine etc., was rightly refused by OP. OP called upon the complainant to furnish a list of missing items other than those which he was not permitted to carry in his checked-in baggage as per Articles 8(f) of the Conditions of Carriage, alongwith purchase receipt. OP called upon the complainant to furnish his bank details so that any claim which was permissible as per rules could be processed and paid into the account of complainant without any delay. However, the complainant chose not to furnish any receipt of purchase of missing articles for which a claim was permissible. Asss such, claim of the complainant was not processed by the OP. It is denied that OP has been deficient in service in any manner. In the end, OP prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6. None appeared on behalf of OP No. 3 and the name of OP No. 3 was ordered to be deleted in view of the statement of the complainant suffered on 20-1-15.

7. Parties were given opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant produced following evidence :

   Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-11 affidavits of complainant;

   Ex. C-2 photocopy of delivery receipt;

   Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5 photocopies of e-mails;

   Ex. C-6 & Ex.C-7 photocopy of letter;

   Ex. C-8 photocopy of estimated cost of missing contents;

   Ex. C-9 photocopy of passenger E-Ticket and

   Ex. C-10 affidavit of Baljit Singh.

8. To rebut the claim of complainant, OP No. 2 tendered following evidence :

   Ex. OP-2/1 affidavit of Christopher Fordyce and

   Ex. OP-2/2 photocopy of General Conditions of Carriage.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of OP No. 2.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for complainant that material facts are not in controversy. The admitted facts are that complainant travelled through airlines of OPs vide Flight No. BA-1489. The complainant also handed over his luggage contained in two bags. The luggage was also to be delivered to the complainant at Delhi Air Port. Admittedly, luggage was not delivered to the complainant at Delhi Air Port. Therefore, OPs were deficient in providing proper service. Of course, the luggage was delivered to the complainant at his residential address, but the bags were not properly locked and its contents were missing. The complainant has acknowledged this fact on the receipt itself by mentioning that some electronic things are missing. He has also mentioned some missing articles such as Cell-phone, Camera, Watch and Shaving Machine etc., In this way, complainant mentioned about the missing articles at the very earliest i.e. at the time of receiving articles. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of OPs. OPs have not disputed correspondence in this connection via mails. Vide mail Ex. C-4, complainant was asked to furnish itemwise list alongwith receipt. The complainant was not supposed to retain the receipts of the purchased articles as these were purchased by him at Glasgow. Therefore, OPs were not justified in rejecting the claim of the complainant only for want of receipt. OPs are also not entitled to protection under General condition of Carrier which has been produced as OP-2/2. The complainant was not carrying any articles which can be treated as fragile or perishable And in case the other articles, being carried by the complainant, were not permissible, the objection was to be raised at the very outset i.e at the time of receiving baggage. Therefore, now the OPs cannot seek protection of general conditions of carriage.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No. 2 submitted that complainant has acknowledged the receipt of two bags. The complainant himself has mentioned in the receipt that the bags were locked. In case the locks were broken, the complainant was not to mention regarding intactness of the locks. This fact itself belies the entire version of the complainant. The complainant has not produced any other evidence to prove that he was carrying Cell Phone, Camera, Watch and Shaving Machine etc., which are now alleged to be missing. Untill and unless the concrete evidence is brought on file that articles in question were being carried by the complainant, he cannot claim that these articles were missing. OP was very fair in its business. The complainant was asked time and again to furnish documentary proof regarding purchase of articles, but he has failed to produce any evidence. In these circumstances, OP is justified to refuse the claim of the complainant.

12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for OP that of course some delay has been caused in delivery of baggage but in order to avoid inconvenience to the complainant, the baggage was delivered to him at the place of his residence as a gesture of goodwill. Therefore, the complaint is without any merit and deserves dismissal

13. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

14. The material facts are not in controversy. It is not disputed that complainant travelled in the airlines of OPs from Glasgow to New Delhi via London. It is also not disputed that complainant was carrying luggage contained in two bags and these bags were not delivered to the complainant at the time of his arrival at New Delhi. The complainant arrived at New Delhi on 9-4-14. The complainant was delivered his baggage at his residence in District Bathinda on 11-4-14 at 10.30 a.m. In this way, no inconvenience has been caused to the complainant regarding late delivery of the baggage to the complainant.

15. The complainant has alleged that some articles worth Rs. 1,27,400/- were missing. Therefore, the only controversy is whether any articles belonging to the complainant was missing. The complainant was delivered his two bags alongwith receipt. The complainant has brought on record this receipt as Ex. C-2. In this receipt, the complainant has himself accepted two bags received with lock but he has further mentioned that some electronic things are missing. It is difficult to accept that when the bags are properly locked, the articles will be missing from them. Moreover, the complainant himself has brought on record some correspondence via mails with OPs. OPs asked the complainant to furnish proof of purchase of articles stated to be missing. Admittedly, the complainant has failed to provide any evidence of purchase/price of missing articles to justify his claim. Before this Forum also, the complainant has not brought any documentary evidence to prove the purchase of missing articles and to prove that he was carrying those articles in the bags. In these circumstances, the conclusion is that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

16. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

17. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

18. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced :

    21-05-2015 (M.P.Singh. Pahwa )

    President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member