<br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainants against the Ops in brief is, that OP 1 is engaged in domestic Air travel business conducts flights to various destination in India. OP 2 is its branch situated at Bangalore International Air port. That the 1st complainants as an educational institution runs under charitable trust having good reputation across the country and overseas. It attracts students from Asian, African and Latin - American countries for various courses conducted by them. During the previous academic year the 1st complainant was able to attract 40 students from overseas through the educational fair. For the academic year 2009-10 they planned to participate in the educational fair in Nepal scheduled on 31-05-2009 and 01-06-2009. That 2nd complainant representing complainant NO:1 was to represent that educational fair. Thus the 2nd complainant was scheduled to travel to Katmandu via Delhi on 29-05-2005 and had booked a seat in Ops flight to Delhi. That the complainant boarded a flight with three baggage’s as detailed in the compliant. That 1st 2 baggage’s contain personal belongings and 3rd baggage contain brochures, prospectus, application forms, letters etc relevant to attend educational fair. On reaching Delhi Air port the 3rd baggage was not delivered and on complaining Ops there they told them that it is mixed up and will be traced. Then it was felt without the materials kept in 3rd baggage it was impossible to participate in educational fair. Ops representative at Delhi promised Complainant No: 2 that she can board her flight to Katmandu and that missing bag would be traced and sent to Katmandu. On her reaching Nepal empty handed expecting luggage did not get the 3rd baggage as the luggage did not arrive at Katmandu and thereby has alleged that Ops have committed mistake in not tracing her luggage and sending that luggage to the destination and thereby stated that they spent Rs.2,55,000/- for journey for hotel stay, rent for educational fair stall etc.., and they are deprived of nearly 25 to 30 students who would have joined the institution for the course and in that regard they have suffered loss of Rs.15 Lakhs. Thus claimed relief to Rs.17,55,000/- and for cost of this complaint. <br /> <br /> Ops have filed their version through their advocate contending that the compliant is not maintainable and that complainants are not consumers and this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint as none of the Ops are situated within the jurisdiction of this forum. They have admitted that OP 1 is in the business operating flight service and that OP 2 is a branch office of Op 1 situated at Devanahalli. The Ops further denying the allegations of the complaint regarding the negligence in handling the baggage have also denied the knowledge about the reputation of complainants institution, attracting students to their institution conducting educational fairs including the proposed one at Katmandu. However have admitted entrusting of 3rd baggage by the 2nd complainant to them and it is missing by further pleading that they extended all the assistance to trace the missing baggage but have taken a stand that the complainants did not disclose the contents of missing baggage and have denied their liability as claimed by complainants. The Ops further denying that the complainants have spent Rs.2,55,000/- towards journey, hotel accommodation and rent of stall etc., have also denied loss of Rs.15,00,000/- suffered by the complainants in not getting admission of the overseas students and have stated that they are not liable to compensate the complainants as per the carriage by air Act 1972 and the rules formulated there under and therefore stating that their liability is limited to Rs.200/- per Kg and nothing more and have prayed for dismissal of the compliant. <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the 2nd complainant and one Prakash Kumar on behalf of the OPs have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective compliant and version. The complainants along with compliant have produced a copy of flight ticket, booking letter, a copy of checked baggage certificate, air ticket invoice. Then Hotel charges receipt, air Ticket with boarding pass and few more receipts regarding expenditure that the 2nd complainant incurred in the course of her travel including at Katmandu. Ops have produced a copy of chapter – X1, a notification regarding application of the carriage by Air Act, 1972 to carriage by Air which is not international. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainants prove that the OP have caused deficiency in their service in not delivering the 3rd baggage that the 2nd complainant booked ? <br /> <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant’s are entitled to ?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point No: 1 in the affirmative. <br /> Point No: 2: Negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS: POINT No:1:: <br /> <br /> As found from the contentions of the parties there is no dispute between then in this complainant NO: 2 having had booked a flight ticket with OP 2 a branch of OP 1 situated at Bangalore International Air port for traveling from Bangalore to New Delhi on 29-05-2009. But the complainants in para 6 of the compliant given the date wrongly as 29-05-2005. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd complainant entrusted 3 baggage’s to Ops for transporting them from Bangalore to New Delhi in the scheduled flight. It is admitted by the Ops that they did not deliver the 3rd baggage to 2nd complainant on her reaching New Delhi and while she was continuing the further journey from Delhi to Katmandu. With this admitted facts we need not go for further details but to consider the claim of the complaints regarding the object with which that the 2nd complainant intended to go to Katmandu and the quantum of damages they claimed. The Ops have raised a pertinent question about the territorial jurisdiction of this forum in deciding this compliant on the ground that none of the Ops are carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this forum. Admittedly the 1st OP is carrying on his business in Mumbai whereas the 2nd complainant booked flight ticket, entrusted baggage to second OP how is carrying on his business at Bangalore International Air Port premises situated at Devanahalli. It is not the case of the complainants that these Ops have any branch or branches in Bangalore city or around the Bangalore City with whom the complainants had any transaction and that branch come within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum. Un-doubtedly Bangalore International Air Port is situated within the limits of the Devanahalli Taluk which comes under Bangalore Rural District. Bangalore Rural District is having a separate District Consumer forum and before which the complainant ought to have file the compliant. As no material is produced before us by the complainants in they having had any sort of transactions with Ops within the territorial limits of this forum they ought not have filed this compliant before this forum and this forum gets no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. In this regard we rely upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 2010 CTJ page 2 and the complaint is therefore is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. <br /> <br /> Complainants have claimed that the 2nd complainant booked ticket to New Delhi to go to Katmandu to participate in an educational fair there and they had booked materials like brochures, application forums, prospectus etc., etc., for introducing to overseas students for attracting them to several courses of their institutions and they had booked a stall by paying rent. But the complainants have not produced any documents or invited our attention to any such documents and payments made towards rent of that stall to claim any specific amount towards the rentals as damages and in they having not able to run the stall for want of materials. It is their further case that in the previous academic year they were able to attract more than 40 students and during the year 2009-10 as they could not run the stall in the educational fair for want of the materials they were not able to attract any students and they could have attracted nearly 25 to 30 students from those place to their college and because of this failure they could not attract any one. As the result they suffered mental agony and thereby claimed damages of Rs.15,00,000/- besides this the complainants have also claimed Rs.2,55,000/- a total sum that the complainant NO:2 spent for flight tickets, hotel stay charges, educational stall rent etc and prayed for reimbursement of the said amount. The complainants of course have produced Xerox copies of certain receipts under which the 2nd complainant paid towards hotel charges and tickets fare but they have not produced documents in proof of that whoofing expenses of Rs.2,55,000/- incurred by them for the course of the 2nd complainants journey and stay. Irrespective of the fact whether the complainants have suffered damages for being not able to attract any students, spent money for the other items referred to above the complainants will not be entitled for reimbursement of all those money’s and payments of damages which according to them is the loss they suffered according to them on account of the deficiency of the Ops in not delivering the 3rd baggage. As admitted by the complainants that 3rd baggage only contained certain materials like brochures, application forms, programme letters and similar other paper materials probably intended to circulate in the educational fair to bring to the knowledge of the overseas students about the activities of their college. The complainants have not disclosed the total cost of these materials which were kept in the 3rd baggage and the loss in terms of money they have suffered. Therefore the complainants in the absence of such a dis-closure the cost of the materials kept in the 3rd baggage and declaration given to the Ops they will not be entitled to any damages for loss of 3rd baggage except under provisions by carriage by Air Act 1972. <br /> <br /> The learned counsel appearing for the complainants relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble national Commission reported II (1995) CPJ page 158 submitted that the opponents are liable to pay the damages as claimed in the complaint for deficiency in the service of Ops in not delivering the 3rd baggage. In the decision relied upon, by the counsel of the complainant the Hon’ble National commission was pleased to hold that the Air carrier had failed to exercise reasonable care and caution as expected being aware of the nature of the consignment and failed to protect the consignment while in its custody. It is clear that in that case the complainant had dis-closed the contents and the probably the value also to the carrier and when that was lost the Opponent therein was held liable to compensate the complainant but in the case on hand the complainant did not disclose the contents, their value and admittedly when they were only publicity materials. Whereas the counsel for the opponents by relying upon the decision reported in I (2006) CPJ P 408 of Uttaranchal State Commission, II (2002) CPJ Page 10 (NC) and three more decisions to the same effect argued that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the compliant and that contents of the baggage were not declared as no special declaration regarding value of the baggage was made, carriers liability is limited and therefore referring to provisions of carriers Act 1972 submitted that liability of the Ops extend upto Rs.200/- k.g. and therefore to dismiss the compliant. The Opponents therefore can only be held as deficient in they are not delivering booked luggage to the travelers and not in respect of other expenditure or loss they suffered which has no nexus to the deficiency attributed. In this regard we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 2008 CTJ Page 561.<br /> <br /> Opponents have through out conceded that they were not successful in tracing the missed 3rd baggage of 2nd complainant. Therefore they would become liable for that deficient act to the 2nd compliant and as found from Chapter III of the carriage by Air Act 1972 under the head liability of the carrier the Ops jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs.200/- per Kg and not more than that. But under the facts and circumstances of this case, the complainants who claimed to had attracted about 40 students during the previous academic year have also not placed any materials before us to substantiate the same as such the claim of the complainants for damages as claimed in the complainant is nothing but hypothical and imaginary. Therefore the complainants under the circumstances stated above would not be entitled to damages more than Rs.200/- per Kg. The complainants have also not given the weight of the bag. However the Ops though held as deficient in their Act in not protecting the 3rd bag of the complainants but in view of the fact that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this compliant the complainants are not entitled for any relief and by answering point No:1 in the affirmative, we pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the open forum on this the 30th March 2010).<br /> <br /> <br />