Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1013/2011

Mrigank Mauli - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Air India - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1013/11                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

SH. MRIGANK MAULI

20, IAS COLONY,

KIDWAIPURI, PATNA-800 001

 

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1.THE CHAIRMAN

AIR INDIA,

NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD.,

AIRLINES HOUSE,

113, GURUDWARA RAKABJUNJ ROAD,

NEW DELHI-01

 

2.THE MANAGING DIRECTOTOR,

AIR INDIA, NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD.,AIRLINES HOUSE,

113, GURUDWARA RAKABJUNJ ROAD,

NEW DELHI-01

 

3.THE MARKETING MANAGER,

AIR INDIA, INDIA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PALAM, NEW DELHI

 

4. THE MARKETING MANAGER,

AIR INDIA,

AIRPORT, COCHIN (KERALA)

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

ORDER

Member: Ritu Garodia

The factual matrix of complaint is that complainant with his family was travelling from Delhi to Kochin on 30.5.2011 for vacations.  He received a SMS regarding change of time.  However, on reaching the airport, he was told the flight has departed.  When the SMS was shown to OP official, an alternate arrangement for travel was made.  On reaching Kochin, only three out of four checked in bags were handed to them and PIR (Property irregularity report) was filed.  Complainant was promised the baggage would reach them but OP failed to deliver the same.  Complainant was forced to buy necessities viz., shoes, clothes etc. during the vacation and bills regarding same are annexed.  Correspondence was exchanged, and thereafter complaint filed.

OP in its version has stated that weight of lost baggage was 10 KG. and under carriage Act they are liable to pay @450/Kg.   OP has in Para 4 of reply stated that its liability is limited to rules laid under schedule II in exercise of powers under Sec. 5 of Carriage by Air Act.  The said Act and schedules are filed on record.  OP has filed plethora of judgments in this regard.  OP has also stated that SMS was for another flight to Kochin on the same day and not for the flight of passenger.

Due consideration has been given to arguments pressed by both parties along pleadings, documents and correspondence.  The flight, travel and loss of baggage is admitted by both parties.  Scrutiny of ticket shows that economy loss passengers are allowed 25 KG. of baggage.  Compensation was offered by OP to the tune of Rs.450/KG in the four.  There are two issues before us:-

1. Quantum of damage.
2. When was the compensation offered?

OP has filed”.  The Carriage by Air Act, 1972” and has stated that they are governed by Rule 22(2)(a) of IInd schedule. Rule 22(2)(a) states:-

“In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kg, unless the passengers or consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires.  In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that that sum is greater than the passenger’s or consignor’s actual interest in delivery at destination”.

The OPs have admitted that baggage lost was 10 kg and according this rules OP will liable to the extent of 250 for 10 KG=2500 francs.

       OP has filed III (2002) CPJ 190 (NC) “Heena Walie Vs. Cathing Pacific wherein one bag out of four bags was misplaced.  Airlines had stated that maximum weight of 32 KG. was allowed and they were ready to pay 640 $ @20$ per kg. and no further compensation was allowed.  In the present case total allowed weight per passenger was 25 kg. and airline could settle out 500 US$ @20$ per kg.

OP has also filed (1996) 4 SCC 704, wherein it was held that liability can be limited to contract between the parties.   In “Air India Vs. Tej Shades Exporters”, Delhi High Court has held that liability is limited to RFA(05)18/2007 extent prescribed under Rule 22.  Other similar judgments were also filed which specified that OPs are liable to extent of rule 22.

       In our considered view, the quantum of damage should be fixed according to schedule II, Rule (2) (a) @250 francs per kg.  The compensation payable according to OP was Rs.4,500/- per para…… of its reply.  However, OPs had never even offered this paltry sum to Complainant before filing of complaint even though mails were exchange in this regard.

       OP being a public sector company running on tax payers’ money to offer public interest services to common man has a greater responsibility and accountability in the travel of service provided to general passenger.  None-the-less, ignoring the principle of public interest, OPs did not offer any compensation even after admitted loss of baggage.  The acts of OP implies that negligence of its staff in handling the baggage and dealing with passengers are not area of concern and laid don procedures and rules have not been followed by public sector airline at all levels.  There are no internal checks and offer of compensation made when the baggage s are lose.  Instead the hapless passenger, a common man, has to fact the ire of P official in demanding their rightful baggage.  This clearly demonstrates lack of care, commitment and total disregard of administrative functions by OP Airlines which cannot be justified on any plane.  The complainant lost his baggage, incurred extra expenses to but necessities, kept on contracting OP airlines which effectively spoiled his enjoyment of much awaited vacation with his family.

       We, therefore, find OP guilty of deficiency for loss of baggage and direct it to pay Rs.2500 francs (@50 francs X10 kg.)  We also award a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and agony caused due to negligence of OP airlines.  We also award Rs.19,000/- as litigation expenses.

       A copy of this order be sent to civil Aviation Ministry and Chairman of Air India to take requisite steps for increasing the efficiency of Indian airlines.

 The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 26.10.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER