Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This is a consumer complaint filed by the Complainant Dr.R. Govind Reddy, who is resident of Mumbai, against Indian Airlines Ltd., Santacruz Airport, Mumbai. According to Complainant who is Doctor by profession, on 09.02.2000, he was travelling by Indian Airlines flight IC-165 with his baggage. He boarded the said flight at New Delhi to go to Mumbai. Baggage was handed over to the staff of the airlines at the counter together with Tag No.336324. Tag was affixed on his air-ticket. He then obtained boarding pass. When he arrived at Mumbai he found that his baggage was lost which contained articles and valuables worth `10,64,000/-. He contacted Duty Officer of the Airlines immediately and intimated the same. He was assured to trace out the same and within two days he would be informed but he did not receive any intimation or information from the Opponent. Therefore, he wrote letter to Opponent Insurance Company on 21.02.2000. Copy of the same sent to Senior Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Santacruz and the Respondent authority at Delhi. According to him in his baggage valuables worth `10,64,000/- were kept which he mentioned in the trim-sheet, which is Annexure-I (Exhibit-B) attached to the complaint. The Airlines assured investigation but he was shocked to receive letter from Indian Airlines on 31.03.2000 admitting the loss of baggage and offered to give compensation of `450/- per kg. totaling `4,500/- for the loss of baggage weighing 10 kg. suffered by him though the said baggage contained, according to him, valuables worth R.10,64,000/-. Exhibit-E is the letter sent by Indian Airlines. The Complainant, not satisfied with the paltry compensation offered by the Indian Airlines filed consumer complaint with a prayer that the Opponent should be directed to pay `10,64,000/- i.e. loss of his baggage containing valuables of Rs10,64,000/- including his Ph.D. thesis documents. He further claimed an amount of `5,00,000/- towards loss, damage caused to the reputation of the Complainant besides cost of the complaint.
(2) The Opponent filed affidavit in reply of M.Khanna, Dy. Manager (Commercial) of Opponent Airlines. According to Opponent, Carriers liability in respect of loss of baggage during carriage by air is limited under the Provisions of Rule 22(2)(a) of Schedule II of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, as applied to the domestic carriage read with the relevant notifications issued thereunder to `450/- per kg of lost baggage unless the passenger has at the time of departure made a declaration under higher value and paid additional charges, in that case the carriage liability would be restricted to the declared sum. According to Opponent, since Complainant in his Property Irregularity Report stated that missing baggage weighed 10 kg., Opponent’s liability would at the most be limited to 4,500/- only and this amount was offered to the Complainant on account of loss of his baggage in accordance with its statutory liability but Complainant refused to accept the said amount offered by the Indian Airlines. They denied that Complainant had carried two baggages out of which one was weighing 11 kg. and missing one weighed 10 kg. The Opponent denied stoutly that the Complainant was carrying valuables worth `10,64,000/- in the missing baggage. In fact, on the ticket itself Opponent No.1 has clearly mentioned under the heading ‘Valuable Articles’ the following advice, “Currency, precious metals, jewellery, Negotiable instruments, Securities, Personal identification documents and items of value are best carried with the passenger in the cabin”. Thus, these facts printed on the air-ticket issued to every passenger had been overlooked by the Complainant. Moreover, he had not disclosed while giving custody of the baggage to the counter of Indian Airlines at Delhi that his baggages were containing valuables worth `10,64,000/- and therefore, Opponent pleaded that they are not liable to pay any amount other than `4.500/- to the Complainant as per their statutory liability. Hence, they pleaded that the compliant should be dismissed with cost.
(3) At the time of hearing none present for the Complainant. We heard submission of Advocate Ms.Sharleen Lobo, proxy for M/s.Mulla & Mulla, for the Opponent and perused the documents on record.
(4) It is not in dispute that Complainant had travelled by Indian Airlines Ticket of IC flight No.165 on 09.02.2000 with his two baggages from Delhi to Mumbai and when he came back to Mumbai he found that his one bag was lost and according to him it was weighing 10 kg. and it contained valuables of `10,64,000/-. This fact which is disputed by the Opponent but Opponent admits that one bag weighing 10 kg. was lost in transit and they could not give delivery of the one bag to the Complainant after his flight landed at Mumbai Airport and therefore, they had offered `4,500/- as compensation as per the provision contained in Rule 22(2)(a) Schedule II of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 read with Notifications issued by Government of India in this behalf. We have gone through the said provisions and we are finding under Carriage by Air Act in terms of 22(2)(a) of Schedule II, Government of India by latest notification has decided quantum of compensation payable at `450/- per kg. of the baggage lost. In this case, as per Property Irregularity Report, Annexure-I of the complaint, baggage of the Complainant which was VIP Suit case of medium size weighed 10 kg. and according to Complainant it contained cash amount of `70,000/-, Camera Costing `12,500/-, Gold Chain with locket worth `18,412/-, Ph.D. thesis programme running into 3000 pages, Ph.D. programme photographs, three medical books, world picture fair catalogs 20 and two dresses and according to Complainant said lost baggage contained valuable articles worth `10,64,000/-. However, he had not disclosed this fact while he entrusted both the baggages to the check-in-counter at the time of check-in process at New Delhi Airport. Had he disclosed that his two bags contained valuables of `10,64,000/- he would have been required to pay additional charges towards said bags containing valuable articles worth more than `10,00,000/- but he had not disclosed that he was carrying valuables more than `10,00,000/- in his baggages and therefore, as per provisions contained in Rule 22(2)(a) of Schedule II of Carriage by Air Act, 1972, the compensation payable by Carrier, in this case Indian Airlines by the Opponent herein would be confined to `450/- per kg. of the baggage lost. Admittedly, the lost baggage of Complainant weighed 10 kg. and therefore, the Airline rightly offered amount of `4,500/- but the Complainant was not ready to accept the same by signing discharge voucher sent by the Indian Airlines. In The Manager, Air India Ltd. & Anr. V/s. India Everbright Shipping & Trading Co., reported in II(2001) CPJ 32 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that notification issued under Rule 22(2)(a) of Schedule II of Carriage by Air Act, 1972, was substantive provision and it has to be given effect under the provisions vested in Consumer Protection Act. So, compensation payable to the Complainant will have to be on the basis of the Government of India Notifications issued under Rule 22(2)(a) of Schedule II of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and as per that notification Government of India has fixed compensation @ `450/- per kg. and since, Complainant’s baggage was weighing 10 kg., Complainant would be entitled to `4,500/- as compensation for his lost baggage and nothing more. It was rightly contended by the Counsel for the Opponent that Complainant should have given declaration at Indian Airlines Counter at Delhi while Check-in process that his baggage contained valuable articles worth more than `10,00,000/-. He had not given such declaration and contrary to the express note printed on the ticket issued to the Complainant, the Complainant had kept valuables in the checked in baggages. Passenger flying by any flight is required to take his valuables along with him in his cabin. He should not have left his valuables in the baggage which he had entrusted to Indian Airlines Counter while accepting boarding pass for the flight. This was required by him as per the clear-cut term printed on the ticket issued to the Complainant. He had not followed the said term and therefore, on the totality of the circumstances, we are finding that there is virtually no deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Airlines, the Opponent herein. The Opponent had already offered `4,500/- for the loss of baggage of the Complainant which was weighing 10 kg. but he refused to take it and therefore, we hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent Airlines in offering `4,500/- as compensation for his lost baggage. In the circumstances, we are finding that there is no substance in the complaint lodged by the Complainant – Dr.R. Govind Reddy and as such complaint will have to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Complaint stands dismissed.
(ii) Both parties are left to bear their own costs. However, we direct Indian Airlines Ltd., the Opponent herein, to send again amount of `4,500/- to the Complainant at his address immediately.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 17th August, 2012.
