By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President.
Facts:
1. The complainant who is working in Qatar travelled from Qatar to Calicut on 26.07.209 in Flight No. I.C.998. He carried with him a hand bag which he thought he could carry in his hands during the flight. On reaching the counter he was directed to hand over the hand bag also along with other baggage. The hand bag contained valuable items as stated under;
(2)
S.L.No Items Qty Price in 1.Rs.
1. Mobile Phone N.95 1 20,683.00
2. Mobile Phone N.97 1 36,000.00
3. Gold Chain Weighting 15.900 Grms. 1 20,876.00
4. Body Spray (Boss) 1 2,730.00
5. Body Spray (Royal Marriage ) 3 702.00
6. Pants 2 2100.00
7. Shirts 4 3650.00
8. Talcum Powder 2
9. Face Cream 2 6500
10. After Shave Lotion 2
11. Baby Food 5200.00
12. Soft Drink Powder
13. Kids Dresses 5850
14. personal Diary 1
=============
Total 1,04,285.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. After arrival at Karipur Air port, he was delivered only one baggage. When he reported that one baggage is missing he was directed to wait. Later he filed a property irregularity report to opposite party. He issued a notice through his lawyer. Opposite party replied stating that the matter
is under investigation. The baggage has not been delivered to him till date. Hence this complaint seeking compensation of Rs.1,04,285/- towards the vale of articles inside the lost bag and for compensation of Rs. 25000/- for mental agony and hardships.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. It is admitted that complainant traveled from Doha to Calicut in Fl. No. I.C.998.It is submitted that the complainant was carrying two pieces if baggages. The hand bag which the complainant carried weighed more than 7 kgs. And so was not permitted to be carried as unchecked/cabin baggage. Therefore as regular practice opposite party required the complainant to check- in the same as registered baggage. At the time of entrusting it as registered baggage the complainant did not declare the value or contents. That as
(2)
per applicable law opposite party is liable to pay only 20 US$ per Kg. The other allegations are denied.
4. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of complainant who was examined as PW1.Ext. A1 to A4 marked for him. Even though the case was posted for counter affidavit of opposite party on 23.06.2011 , 22.07.2011 and 23. 08.201 opposite party did not file any counter affidavit. There was no representation for opposite party on theses days. The case was therefore taken for orders on 23.08.2011
5. Complainant is aggrieved by the loss of his baggage. Opposite party admits that one baggage has not been delivered. Non delivery of the baggage entrusted for transport is deficiency. We find opposite parties deficient. Ext A2 is the property irregularity report. This document shows that complaint had entrusted two pieces of baggage weighing 40 kg. It is seen stated that one baggage weighing 22 kg was delivered to him and that another baggage of 20kg has not been delivered. Opposite party has canvassed the position under Cl.22 of Carriers Act that the carriers liability is limited to 20US$ per kg of the missing baggage. Counsel for the complainant has strenuously argued that the present case would fall under Cl.25 and the limit of liability under Cl.22 would not apply. We have gone through the detailed and meticulous notes of argument submitted by the counsel for complainant. It is argued on behalf of complainant that it was after the check - in of one baggage as the registered baggage that the complainant moved to the counter and he was asked to check in the hand bag also. But this argument is not supported by any evidence. In para 4 of his affidavit he has affirmed that when he proceeded to the counter he was asked to check- in his hand bag also along with the other baggage .He has deposed that on weighing the handbag it was found to weigh 18 kg. and the other bag was 22kg. A baggage to be carried as hand baggage has weight and size restrictions. As the bag weighed 18 kg it was only regular practice for opposite party to require the passenger to check -in the hand bag a a registered baggage. We cannot find this act to constitute any willful misconduct on the part of opposite party to bring the situation under Cl.25. The contents in the hand bag were not declared by the complainant. We are therefore of the opinion that the limits of liability stated in Cl.22 would apply. Ext. A2 property irregularity report issued by opposite party shows the weight of missing baggage to be 20kg. The complainant is therefore entitled to US$20 per kg. of the missing baggage.(US$20x20kg.)We consider that he is entitled to Rs.6000/- towards the mental agony and hardships suffered. In a simple matter the complainant was asked to appear for cross examination by opposite party. We hold that complainant is entitled to Rs.2000/- as costs.
(4)
6. In the result we partly allow the complaint ,and order that opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant Indian rupees equivalent to US$ 400 together with Rs.6000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs. The exchange rate prevailing on the date of the order shall be applicable to both sides.
Dated this 29th day of August, 2011.
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : W1
W1 :Sri. Mohammed
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to Ext.A4
Ext.A1 :Original Copy of Airo Plane Ticket
Ext.A2 :Property Irregularity Report
Ext.A3 :Lawyer Notice issued to Opposite Party dated 22.08.2009
Ext.A4 :Letter issued by Opposite party dated 11.09.2009
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, MEMBER
E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
