Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

310/2010

D.Amsaveni - Complainant(s)

Versus

m/s. Air France Authorised Officer & another - Opp.Party(s)

R.Dhamodaran

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   05.08.2010

                                                                        Date of Order :   09.10.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.310/2010

MONDAY THIS  9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

1. Tmt. D.Amsaveni (Died),

W/o. S.Deenadayalan,   

No.10/20, Vimalapuram I Street,

Manali, Chennai 600 068.

 

2. Mr.S.Deenadayalan,

S/o. Late Santhanakrishnan,

No.10/20, Vimalapuram 1^st Street,

Manali, Chennai – 68.

 

3. Tmt. V.Indumathy,

W/o.R.Vinayagamurthy,

TI-3^rd Floor, Maha Shetters,

1078, Officer’s Colony,

Anna Nagar West Extension,

Chennai 600 101.

 

4. Tmt. D.Indira,

W/o. Dinakaran,

No.31, Velacherry Main Road,

Mahalakshmi Nagar,

Selaiyur,

Chennai 73.

 

5. Mr. D.Vinodh Kumar,

S/o. Deenadayalan,

 

6. D.Ganesan,

S/o. Deenadayalan,

Complainants 5 & 6 are residing at

No.10/20, Vimalapuram Ist Street,

Manali, Chennai -68.                                                            .. Complainants

 

                                        ..Vs..

1. M/s. Air France,

Rep. by its Authorized Officer,

Kubers Flats,

Pantheon Road, Egmore,

Chennai 600 008.   

 

2. M/s. Air France,

Rep. by its Authorized Officer,

Room No.28, II Floor,

Anna International Airport

Terminal, Chennai 600 027.                              .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant            :   M/s. R. Dhamodaran & others          

Counsel for opposite parties       :   M/s. Natraj Rao Raghu & Sundaram   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay the value of missing articles contained in the 1^st complainant’s baggage and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, mental agony and health deterioration and to pay cost of the complaint.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainants submit that  the 1^st complainant travelled in Air France flight No.AF 373 and AF 204 from Detroit Metro, USA  to Paris on 7.12.2008 and reached Chennai on 9.12.2008 at 12.30 a.m.  Further the complainants state that the 1^st complainant while travelling took two checked baggages in each one with Tag No.NW 379192 was found missing.   The complainant duly complied the matter to the 2^nd opposite party and furnished due declaration.  Due inventory of articles contained checked in baggage also submitted.  The value of missing articles amounts to 1540 USD equitant  Rs.77,000/-.  Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite parties failed to take steps.   As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite parties  are as follows:

      The opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.     The opposite parties submitted that  the complainant has made an exaggerated claim and inflated the value of the articles allegedly carried in the luggage.   Furthermore, the complainant was carrying prohibited items in the baggage and had not made any declaration of the same at the time of checking in the baggage.   The opposite party-1 can therefore not be held liable for the loss of such prohibited items as is clearly mentioned in the CGOC.   The complainant has valued the articles contained in the lost baggage at 1540 USD.  She has however failed to provide any bills/ invoice or any other supporting document to substantiate the value of the articles and thus the baggage.    However on discovering that the baggage was untraceable, opposite party-1 as a measure of goodwill, estimated the weight of the baggage to be 6 kg on the basis of the contents as declared by the complainant herself and accordingly offered her a compensation of Rs.7525 on the basisof 17 SDRs per kg   which  was higher than the industry standard of US $ 20 per kg.   The complainant however refused to accept the said compensation for reasons best known for her.  It is further submitted that as mentioned above the opposite party-1 is not liable for any consequential injury and mental agony caused to her under the law in force in India.    Furthermore the claim for mental agony in the absence of physical injury is ousted by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 since it is not the case of the complainant that she suffered any physical injury, the claim with respect of mental agony and harassment is clearly unsustainable.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.       

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4  marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.77,000/-    towards missing the checked baggage as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, mental agony and health deterioration with costs as prayed for ?

 

5.   POINTS 1 & 2:

Heard both sides.  Perused the records.  Admittedly the 1^st complainant travelled in Air France flight No.AF 373 and AF 204 from Detroit Metro, USA  to Paris on 7.12.2008 and reached Chennai on 9.12.2008 at 12.30 a.m.   It is also admitted that the 1^st complainant while travelling took two checked baggages in each one with Tag No.NW 379192 was found missing.   The complainant duly complied the matter to the 2^nd opposite party and furnished due declaration as per Ex.A1.  Due inventory of articles contained checked in baggage also submitted as per Ex.A4.  The value of missing articles amounts to 1540 USD equitant  Rs.77,000/-.  Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite parties failed to take steps.  Hence the complainant constrained to issue legal notice Ex.A6 on 21.1.2009.  Since the opposite parties have not sent any reply.   The complainant was constrained to file this case; claiming Rs.77,000/- towards value of the missing articles and Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony etc. 

6.     Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the contention raised by the opposite parties that as per the Carriage Air Act 1972 the complainant is not entitled to bring such quality of baggage with undeclared items  and the procedure followed by the opposite parties.     As per Carriage Air Act 1972 the opposite parties is duty bound to reject if any undeclared items found in the baggage or if any prohibited in the  baggage or if any prohibited etc.  As per the general condition of the Carriage Act is not strictly followed by the opposite parties and permitted to  baggage weighted 23 kg  after fully checked it.   As such the act of the opposite parties is amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. 

7.     The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that admittedly the complainant while travelling check in baggage weighting 23 kg as per Carriage Act 1972.  The complainant is not entitled to carry an article without any declaration.  In this case the complainant without any declaration carried the articles.  But admittedly the baggage was duly checked if any prohibited items found in baggage or if any undeclared items found in baggage the opposite parties can very well rejects the baggage from inception of checking.   In this case admittedly the opposite parties permitted to check the baggage which found to missing amounts to deficiency of service.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that as per the General Carriage Act the complainant is entitled to 20 USD per kilo grs. of the weight of the baggage alone entitled for compensation after deducting weight related to prohibited items.  The complainant can carry only 6 k.g on calculating the rates 20 $ US the opposite parties proposed to settle the matter of Rs.5827.20 in the year 2009 itself;   Since the complainant refused to agree for the amount.   But on a careful perusal of all the records after permitting the items weighting 23kg and due to deficiency of service in  handling the goods resulting missing baggage checked in baggage receiving declaration form and reducing the value is against the principle of nature of justice.   Further it is seen that as per the General Condition of  Carriage Act 1972 there are several items shows under prohibited items while taking in baggage the opposite parties failed and neglected to accept the baggage.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the  opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.77,000/- towards value of missing article and also shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.77,000/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand only)  towards value of missing article and also shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainants.  

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

            Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 9^th day  of  October  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 18.7.2008  - Copy of Electronic Ticket,

Ex.A2- 8.12.2006  - Copy of Boarding pass and receipt

Ex.A3- 7.12.2008  - Copy of Declaration form for issuing baggage.

Ex.A4- 9.12.2008  - Copy of Inventory form issued by 2^nd opp. party

Ex.A5- 16.12.2008         - Copy of Description of contents of missing baggage.

Ex.A6- 21.1.2009  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A7-         -       - Copy of Ack.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -    

Ex.B1-         -       - Copy of Affidavit of evidence of 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B2- 19.1.2009  - Copy of email message

Ex.B3-         -       - Copy of e. ticket.

Ex.B4-         -     - Copy of Northwest baggage tag.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.