By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. On 31-3-2003 complainant travelled from Jeddah to Calicut and his baggage was entrusted with first opposite party from Jeddah for carriage to Calicut. On 01-4-2003 complainant reached Calicut airport, but his baggage was received in a damaged condition. The articles worth Rs.49,776/- contained in the baggage was lost. Complainant informed opposite party about the damage to the bag and about missing articles. Later opposite party responded by stating the articles cannot be found and offered Rs.3,000/- as compensation. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service.

2. Emirates Airlines, which is the first opposite party has filed version stating that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the ticket issued by first opposite party is only from Jeddah to Mumbai. From Mumbai to Calicut the complainant has travelled via Indian Airlines flight by separate ticket sector which was purchased by complainant on 31-3-2003 from Mumbai. That first opposite party had booked the baggage of the complainant only till Mumbai and this was delivered to the complainant at Mumbai. That as per baggage tag given by first opposite party complainant had entrusted only one piece ofbaggage which was to be delivered at Mumbai. It was not to be delivered at Calicut as stated in the complaint. The complainant had rechecked the baggage at Mumbai, which involved clearing customs check at Mumbai airport and has proceeded to domestic terminal to board the Indian Airlines flight. That if the baggage was received in a damaged condition at Calicut, then claim would lie only against Indian Airlines and Indian Airlines is a necessary party. First opposite party has denied as incorrect the contention that baggage contained articles worth Rs.49,776/-. No declaration was made by complainant. The ticket of the complainant to travel by Indian Airlines was not in conjunction with the original ticket from Jeddah and was a separate ticket. The baggage was delivered at Mumbai and the duty of first opposite party ceased then and there. On receiving complaint first opposite party offered Rs.3,000/- only as a gesture of good will. That there is no deficiency in service.

3. Second opposite party was impleaded as per orders in I.A.450/08. Version was filed by second opposite party stating that the complaint does not disclose anything regarding the role played by second opposite party in relation to the damaged bag. That no allegations are made against second opposite party and no relief is seen sought against second opposite party. Even the name of Airline in which complainant traveled is not stated. That second opposite party did not receive any notice regarding damage to baggage. Second opposite party has come to know of the issue only on receiving notice from the Forum. That no documents regarding the alleged incident is available with second opposite party in order to verify and file version. That documents are kept in safe custody only for a period of three years. That second opposite party may be exonerated.

4. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A3 marked for him. First opposite party filed counter affidavit. Second opposite party has not filed any affidavit. No documents marked for opposite parties. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

5. First opposite party has disputed the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to try the complaint. The complainant came to know about the damaged baggage only after he landed at Calicut (Karipur) airport and he lodged his first complaint to opposite party at this airport which is well within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint.

6. Complainant alleges deficiency in service only against Emirates Airlines who is the first opposite party herein. It is the case of complainant that on his travel from Jeddah to Calicut he entrusted with first opposite party his baggage to be carried to Calicut. This is flatly denied by first opposite party who contends that complainant travelled by Emirates Airlines only upto Mumbai and from Mumbai to Calicut. Complainant had travelled by Indian Airlines, by a separate ticket purchased by the complainant at Mumbai. Thus first opposite party contends that the readjustment was to carry the baggage from Jeddah to Mumbai only since the ticket issued to complainant by first opposite party was only upto Mumbai. It is also stated that the single piece o baggage checked in with first opposite party was delivered to complainant at Mumbai.

7. Ext.A2 is the ticket copy issued by Indian Airlines by which complainant had travelled from Mumbai to Calicut. According to complainant Ext.A2 was issued by First opposite party from Jeddah itself and he had no occasion to purchase the ticket from Mumbai. It is further submitted that the Indian Airlines flight from Mumbai to Calicut was a connecting flight arranged by Emirates Airlines and that the baggage was directly transferred to Indian Airlines flight by the Emirate officials. On perusal of Ext.A2 the origin and destination of travel is shown as Mumbai and Calicut respectively. Nothing is brought to our notice in Ext.A2 which shows that it was issued at Jeddah by first opposite party. In Ext.A2 in the column for baggage check against 'weight/pieces' it is endorsed as 'NB' which can be presumed to be read as 'No Baggage'. Thus Ext.A2 does not show that complainant had checked in any baggage while boarding Indian Airlines flight at Mumbai. Complainant has not produced any document to show that his baggage was booked from Jeddah upto Calicut. He has not produced his passport to show from where his emigration clearance was done. Even if we assume that Ext.A2 was issued by Emirate Airlines under any arrangement; being a separate sector ticket, ordinarily a passenger has to take delivery of the baggage at Mumbai, get his emigration clearance by resorting to baggage checking and then proceed to domestic terminal to board the Indian Airlines flight. Being a separate sector ticket complainant ought to have taken delivery of the baggage at Mumbai, obtained customs clearance and then should have checked in the baggage for Indian Airlines flight. Complainant denies taking delivery of the baggage at Mumbai.

8. Interestingly, first opposite party swears that the single piece baggage entrusted to them was delivered to complainant at Mumbai. If this be true, when complainant reported about his damaged baggage why did opposite party respond by offering Rs.3,000/- as compensation? If opposite party had delivered the baggage at Mumbai then opposite party could have asserted this fact in Ext.A1 reply issued to complainant instead of offering compensation. In Ext.A1 first opposite party has stated as under:

“We sincerely apologies for the inconvenience experienced by you on account of missing baggage. Regrettably, e received the bag to a damaged condition from Dubai.

We would like to offer you an amount of Rs.3,000/- for the damaged bag and missing perfume bottles.”

 

9. Ext.A1 establishes that the baggage was not delivered to the complainant at Mumbai as contended by first opposite party. In the complaint it is averred that on 01-4-2003 he received the baggage in a damaged condition and reported about the missing articles to opposite party. The affirmation in the affidavit is to the effect that on 01-4-2003 he received one baggage in a damaged condition, that too which was not in his name. He further goes to affirm that he reported to first opposite party about missing baggage and missing articles. If there was only one baggage then whether it was totally missing or whether he received it in damaged condition is not clear from the affidavit. We cannot refrain from saying that there is unsolved mystery in the affirmation made by the complainant that he received a damaged baggage which was not in his name. How can the complainant claim for the articles missing in a baggage that was not in his name? In the additional affidavit filed he states that the weight of the missing articles inside the damaged baggage was 38kgs. We are not inclined to believe these inconsistent submissions. There is no reliable evidence to substantiate the weight of the baggage. For these reasons we are unable to hold that complainant has succeeded in establishing his case. However in the interest of justice we consider that complainant shall be paid the amount of Rs.3,000/- which was offered by first opposite party as a gesture of good will, which we consider would be adequate relief taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs.2,000/-

10. In the result we partly allow the complaint and order that first opposite party shall pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant along with cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Second opposite party is exonerated from liability.

Dated this 27th day of August, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3

Ext.A1 : Letter dated, 07-4-2003 by first opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A2 : Air Ticket by first opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A3 : Boarding pass by first opposite party to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

Complainant absent. No representation dismissed. Dated this 9th day of January, 2008. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER