BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of January 2012
Filed on : 03/06/2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 400/2010
Between
George Kolathoor Job : Complainant
Mammiyoor, (By Adv. Unnikrishnan V.,
Guruvayoor P.O., “Vrindavan”, Karimpatta Thrissur. road,Pallimukku,
Kochi-682 016.)
And
1. National Aviation Company : Opposite parties
Of India Ltd., Airlines House, (By Adv. Nithin George,
113, Gurudwara Rakabhanj Menon & Pai, I.S. Press
Road, New Delhi-110 001, Road, Ernakulam,
Rep.by its Chairman. Kochi-18
2. The Manager,
Baggage Service,
Air India, Cochin International
Airport, Nedumbassery,
Ernakulam.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a permanent resident of Guruvayur in Thrissur District. The 2nd opposite party manages the baggage service of the 1st opposite party at the Cochin International Airport Nedumbassery. On 06-09-2009 the complainant traveled from Dubai to Mumbai by flight A1 716 and from Mumbai to Cochin by flight No. AI 690 of the first opposite party on 07-09-2009. At the time of boarding the flight at Dubai, the complainant had booked his baggage directly to Cochin and entrusted the first opposite party with five pieces of baggage which were wrapped and tagged by the staff of the 1st opposite party at Dubai International Air port. But the complainant received one of the baggages in a damaged condition and a mobile phone worth Rs. 40,000/- and a Samsung Digital Camera worth Rs. 12,000/- were missing from the damaged baggage. The complainant forthwith preferred a complaint with the 2nd opposite party to which the 2nd opposite party replied that the matter had been referred to security department for investigation. Since there was no reply the complainant caused a lawyer notice dated 26-10-2009 to the 2nd opposite party. Again on 04-11-2009 the complainant caused lawyer notice to the 1st opposite party as well. The 1st opposite party replied denying their liability. The complainant is entitled to get the price of the necessary articles from the opposite parties together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties.
The complainant had traveled by the flight of the 1st opposite party from Dubai to Cochin. All the five pieces of baggages entrusted with the first opposite party, at the time of boarding the flight it was returned to him at Kochi International Airport, without any loss. At the time of entrusting of the baggage the complainant had not declared the value of the consignment or the contents of the baggage. So the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant. On receiving the complaint from the complainant an enquiry was made by the security department which has ruled out any tampering with the baggage There is no lack or care or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. There is no basis for the demand of compensation by the complainant. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the price of
the mobile handset and camera from the opposite
parties?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay
compensation or costs of the proceedings to the
complainant?
5. Point No. i&ii. Admittedly the complainant travelled in flight No. AI 716 on 06-09-2009 from Dubai to Mumbai and in flight No. A1690 from MumbaI to Kochi on 07-09-2009. According to the complainant he had carried a mobile phone and a digital camera in one of his baggages. It is stated that he received the said baggage in a damaged condition and the opposite parties are liable to pay the price of the missing articles together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. Per contra, the opposite parties vehemently contended that they have delivered the 5 baggages entrusted with them at Dubai Air Port was delivered to the complainant without any weight loss.
6. It is not in dispute that the complainant did not declare describe or disclose the value of the articles at the time of entrusting the baggages at Dubai Air port. During evidence PW1 deposed that he was not aware of the wait of the damaged baggage. Indisputably on the very same day of reaching Kochi the complainant caused Ext. A3 complaint to the 2nd opposite party stating the loss of the articles from the baggage on verification. The 2nd opposite party duly forwarded the complaint to the concerned authority for investigation and the complaint was informed of the same by Ext. A4 letter dated 08-09-2009. Thereafter the opposite parties maintain that they duly delivered the baggages to the complainant without any damage. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has lodged Ext. A3 complaint immediately on arrival at Cochin Airport. Though the opposite parties contended that they have investigated the matter in detail and found that the allegations are baseless but they have not intimated the same to the complainant in time. They responded only when the complainant caused lawyer notice to the opposite parties. The delay in not conducting the investigation in time itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However only at a belated stage the opposite parties produced the investigation report and got it marked as Ext. B2 for reasons sustained which only seems to be a ruse for at explanation on the defect on their part. Since the complainant had not disclosed the contents of the baggage or disclosed the price of the items we are not necessarily accept or appreciate the averments of the complainant that he is entitled to get refund of the price of the missing articles. It is also to be noted that the complainant failed to prove that he had purchased or possessed the same for want of evidence prior to his journey from Dubai to Cochin.
7. However there has been a proven deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which has not been unsustained. For the sole reason that ‘consumer is king’ his averments or arguments can’t be blindly disinclined. Having been unproved squarely we only have to allow a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant which we feel would meet the ends of justice adequately.
8. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Srilankan Air Lines Ltd. V. The Permanent Lok Adalath 2009 (4) KLT 625 held that “therefore the airlines should be put to prima facie proving that they took adequate and proper care to the baggage and the same was damaged or lost despute proper care”.
9. Point No. ii. Since the primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely and adequately order for costs of the proceedings is not called for.
10. In view of the above we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for the reasons stated above. The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of January 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits:
Ext. A1 : Galileo Reference
A2 : Boarding pass
A3 : copy of letter dt. 17-09-200
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 05-09-2009
A5 : Lawyer notice dt. 26-10-200
A6 : Copy of postal receipt
A7 : A.D. Card
A8 : Lawyer notice dt. 04-11-200
A9 : Postal receipt
A10 : A.D. card
A11 : Reply notice dt. 12-11-2009
Opposite party’s exhibits:
Ext. B1 : Copy of letter dt. 08-09-2009
B2 : Copy of letter dt. 22-09-2009
Depositions:
PW1 : George kolathoor Job
DW1 : P.A. Umadevi
