Delhi

New Delhi

CC/898/2012

Kamla Devi Dahiya & Anr - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. China Southern Airlines & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jul 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/898/12                                                                                                                                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

MS.KAMLA DEVI DAHIYA & ANR

W/O SHRI SATYAWAN DAHIYA

R/O H.NO. 360 B TILAK NAGAR, ROHTAK HARYANA.

 

SHRI SATYAWAN DAHIYA,

S/O SHRI CHET RAM,

R/O H.NO. 360 B TILAK NAGAR,

ROHTAK HARYANA

……..COMPLAINANT

         

VERSUS

 

1.M/S. CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES,

27, NEW DELHI HOUSE,

BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110001.       

 

2.ARISTA TRAVELS PVT. LTD.

106 A SAGAR PLAZA-1,

PITAMPURA COMMUNITY CENTRE

BEHIND M2K PITAMPURA

NEAR RANI BAGH,

NEW DELHI-34.

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

ORDER 

MEMBER: RTU GARODIA

The complaints case pertains to pilferage in the baggage of complainant in the custody of OP.

The complainants were travelling from Australia to India via Guangzhou, China on OP flight No.CZ326 on 12.7.12.  However, on their arrival at New Delhi Airport they were informed that their baggage was left at Guangzhou Airport by mistake.  Property irregularity Report i.e. PIR was filed mentioning the weight of baggage as 56 KG and general description of contents of baggage.   PIR is annexed with the complainant.  The baggage was received on 15.7.12 by complainant.  When complainant check the baggage found several items were missing and weight of baggage to be 53 Kg.  The complainant has also annexed the receipt given to OP wherein complainant had mentioned that baggage was not locked and also gave a detail list of missing items.  The receipt is duly signed by the delivery boy, one Mr. Ved Parkash who admitted that bags were opened before him and listed items were not there in said bags.  He also mentions that weight of bag received was 53 KG.  Complainant has also annexed a baggage tag which shows the bags to be 29 Kgs. and 28 KGs respectively coming to total of 57 Kgs.  Several e-mail were exchanged between the parties OP in e-mail dt. 19.7.12 admitted that checked in baggage was 56 Kg. and baggage received by complainant was 55 Kg and they are willing to pay $20 as compensation.

OPs in their version have reiterated that as per IATA rules, they are ready to pay compensation for loss of 1KG in baggage.  It further alleged that complainant did not give the entire list of items in the baggage in PIR.

After giving thoughtful consideration and scrutinizing the pleading of parties and documents annexed. It appears that initial baggage was 57 KG (28 + 29 Kg.) as manifest from baggage tags.  OP is completely mute in this regard.  OP has also nowhere denied that the baggage was not delivered by one, Mr. Ved Parkash nor controverted the man’s signature purporting the baggage to be 53 Kgs.  OP has also admitted that baggage was one Kg less than what was initial check-in weight of the baggage. Nonetheless displaying a patronizing and cavalier attitude, OP after several correspondences had agreed to dole out mere $20 as compensation.  OP has not filed any plausible or reliable evidence as to discrepancy in the weight of baggage at the time of check-in and when it was delivered.  The namby plenty pleas set up by OP are vague and evasive and leads the Forum nowhere. 

The issue before us is the accountability of airlines for passenger’s baggage which was in their custody during transit.  OP Airlines which admitting to pilferage has neither taken any follow-up action nor corrective measure in this regard.  Merely paying $20 to passenger does not absolve OP airlines of its responsibility of safe keeping of passenger’s belongings during travel where passengers are not allowed to keep their belongings in their own custody.

The negligence, insensitivity and passivity displayed by airlines staff towards unfortunate passengers cannot be condoned in any manner whatsoever.  A custodian of goods cannot be allowed to exempt from accountability towards the goods.

We, therefore, hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony caused to complainant.  We also award Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

The Civil Aviation Ministry should take up the matter regarding security of baggages in the charge of airlines, issue corrective measures and undertake penal actions against the erring airlines.  A copy of this order is to be sent to Civil Aviation Ministry.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action will 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 21.07.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER