Date of Filing:15.07.2008<br /> Date of Order:30.12.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1577 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Vinay Khedkar<br /> C/o. Thimegowda Byrappa Layout<br /> H.No. 15, Near Ravi Tailors<br /> Whitefield, Bangalore 560 066 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Deepa<br /> Security In Charge<br /> Srilankan Airlines<br /> Bangalore International Airport<br /> 147, Devanahalli<br /> Bangalore 560 020` Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant. <br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant and his wife traveled back to India by Srilankan Airlines Flight No. UL 558. They had four check in bags. They went back to home in Whitefield from Airport. When they got up at 7.00 a.m. they opened bag and found that golden jewellery missing. They also called Srilankan Airlines. They went to airport to meet Mr. Shilesh, by that time he had left the airport. Complainant sent mail to Frankfurt Airport. They received reply from Frankfurt Airport. They sent complaint to Srilankan Aviation Department and did not receive any help. The complainant tried to register the complaint with the police. But they did not register the complaint. Check in baggage becomes responsibility of airlines. The complainant traveled through Srilankan Airlines. Therefore, it becomes responsibility of this airline to keep passenger luggage safe. Therefore, the complainant requested to do needful in this regard.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance and defence version filed stating that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party referred Article 8.3.4 of Srilankan Airlines Conditions of Carriage and opposite party is not liable for payment of compensation. Therefore, requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?”<br /> 5. The learned advocate for the opposite party has produced e-mail of the complainant dated 03.07.2008. In this mail the complainant has requested the airline authority to give him required documents atleast to get some compensation from his insurance company and he has stated in the mail that this claim will be for complete baggage loss, since there is no option for any part loss from bag and he requested and stated that he need three documents from airlines in proof of entire baggage loss. The counsel of the opposite party submits that the complainant has submitted so many email correspondences but, he purposefully suppressed the mail sent by him on 03.07.2008. By this mail the complainant wants to claim compensation from the insurance company for the complete baggage loss. Whereas in the present complaint the complainant has stated that he has lost jewellery kept in one of the bag. Therefore, on this ground itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Learned advocate for the opposite party brought to our notice Article 8.3.4 of General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage which were effective from January 2002 published by Srilankan Airlines. As per this document it has been stated that the passengers must not include in checked baggage money, jewellery, precious metals, computers, personal electronic devices, negotiable papers, securities or other valuables, business documents, passports and other identification documents or samples. So as per this Article passengers are not suppose to keep valuable items gold, jewellery or money in checked bags. Admittedly, the complainant has not disclosed the articles or items kept in the check in baggage to the authority. As per Article 8.3.5 if, despite being prohibited, any items referred above are included in baggage, the airlines shall not be responsible for any loss or damage to such items. So under this Article also the airlines cannot be held responsible for alleged loss of jewellery. The complainant also has no evidence or proof to establish that he had kept jewellery in the check in bag. It is the duty of the passengers to follow the rules and regulations and if anything happens against the rules or conditions how can the airlines can be held responsible. On the facts of the case the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any grant of compensation from the opposite party. As per email dated 03.07.2008 complainant wants to claim compensation from the Insurance Company and if so he will be at liberty to claim compensation from insurance company as per law on production of required documents. The opposite party will definitely help and co-operate the complainant in getting compensation from the insurance company. I hope opposite party could furnish required documents on the request of the complainant so that he could claim compensation from the insurance company. With this observation, the complaint is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />