Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1818/2008

Prosanta Kumar Ray - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Singaore Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

05 May 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/1818/08                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Prosanta Kumar Ray,

S/o Late Mohan Lal Ray,

B-49, DDA SFS Flats, Sheikh Sarai,

Phase-I, New Delhi-17

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

Singapore Airlines,

9th FL, Ashoka Estate,

24, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001

Through its Director/A.R.

Also at:

Airline House,

25 Airline Road, Singapore 819829,

Through its Director/A.R.

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

 

        We have summarily considered the alleged complaint of deficiency on the part of in respect of a lost baggage of the complainant on his return journey on 27.07.08 from San Francisco in its flight no.SQ1. He did not find the baggage on arrival and lodged Property Irregularity Report. After 2 days, the baggage reached. The complainant on opening found that his laptop was missing, which he had purchased in USA. The cash invoice is placed on record. The OP in its reply states that OP offered USD 260, for the inconvenience, which was refused by complainant. It also alleged that the baggage was subject to security check at Airport as per U.S Laws and baggages are opened and items replaced. In the process if some goods goes missing, it is contended that the OP cannot be blamed.

        We have considered the rival contentions, material on record, evidence etc. It is seen from the PIR lodged by complainant that he indicated the laptop in the baggage, and therefore it cannot be doubted. The receipt shows that he paid USD 1627 for the laptop on 22.07.08. We are of the view that the goods in the baggage once handed over to OP for transportation, the same are in custody of OP as bailee and it is supposed to take care of the property as its own. It is duty of OP to ensure that it ensures by prevue of its officials at the time of checking of goods by security checks that things are not pilfered and are put back into it. In case OP cannot take this contention, it should protect itself by insurance cover for such claims. The complainant cannot be left high & dry. Holding OP guilty of deficiency, we direct OP to pay USD 1627/- as cost of laptop removed from his baggage and pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, harassment & Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses forced on complainant for last 7 years.

The order shall be complied 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 05.05.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER