BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
FA NO.432 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.138 OF 2013
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY
Between:
1) Air India Ltd., AO-26, Level-G, PTB,
Rajiv Gandhi International Airport,
Shamshabad – 501 218, R.R. District.
Rep. by its Branch Manager, also at
5-1-193, HACA Bhavan, Hill Fort Road,
Saidabad, Hyderabad – 500 004.
2) Air India Ltd., Safdarjung Airport,
Audobindo Marg, New Delhi – 110 003
Rep. by its Managing Director.
…Appellants/Opposite parties
And
Pathuri Vittal Rao S/o Narayana,
Aged about 57 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Plot No.190, H.No.2-23-116,
HMT, Satavahana Nagar, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad – 500 072.
…Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s K.Srinivasa Murthy & A.Gopalakishan Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Party-in-person
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
and
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of October
Two thousand Sixteen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
1) This is an appeal filed by the Opposite parties aggrieved by the orders dated 31.01.2014 of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy made in C.C.No.138 of 2013 allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite parties to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as cost of contents of the baggage and further directing to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for inconvenience, mental agony and hardship, including the costs granting time of (30) days for compliance.
2) The parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before forum below for felicity of expression.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant and his wife, in order to visit their daughter at New Jersey in USA, booked two flight tickets on 25.05.2012 through M/s Shubham Air Travels, Hyderabad for travel from Hyderabad on 11.07.2012 bearing ticket No.ETKT 098 9552980640 for flight AI-51. On the pretext of strike, Ops cancelled the said ticket and booked new tickets bearing No.ETKT 098 9554977070 and 71 for flight No.AI-127 to travel on 11.07.2012. As per ticket, the Complainant has to travel to Delhi and therefrom to New York through different connecting flights.
4) Complainant and his wife boarded the flight No.AI-127 on 11.07.2012 at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad on 11.07.2012 and handed over their entire luggage to Ops except the hand bags. After boarding the flight, the flight attendants informed that there was space constraint and requested to handover the hand bags, to which they issued tag No.BN 11 SN. After alighting at New Jersey, the flight attendants failed to return the two handbags weighing about 8 Kgs containing clothes, silk sarees, medicines, important documents and medical records pertaining to them and they informed that they were missing, for which a complaint was lodged by the Complainant. After reaching New Jersey, their daughter sent e-mail on 13.07.2012 and on next day, they furnished the bag tag number, as requested.
5) In spite of several mails, the Ops failed to find the missing baggage. Even after their return to India on 05.01.2012, they enquired with the Ops but of no avail. The baggage is worth more than Rs.1,00,000/- containing valuables. Hence the complaint to direct the Ops to return the hand baggage to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency of service and negligence on the part of Ops.
6) The Opposite parties resisted the claim contending that the complaint is filed with all false allegations and liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. They admitted to have Complainant booked tickets from Hyderabad to New York via Delhi but not from Hyderabad to New Jersey. The passengers had boarded the flight at Shamshabad Airport and the hand baggage of the passenger was retrieved at the boarding gate and a Limited Release Tag No.095316 was issued to them for collection of their hand baggage at JFK Airport (New York). No complaint was registered about the missing bag. Had the complaint been lodged, the Ops could have sent a world tracer message for locating the missing hand baggage through-out the network which is the normal procedure undertaken by the carrier in case of missing baggage.
7) The Ops admitted to have received the mail from the daughter of complainant and also admitted to have received the tag number. It was brought to their notice that the baggage was not delivered to the passenger on arrival on 12.07.2012. The liability of the carrier is limited under the Montreal Convention. At the time of retrieving the hand baggage at Shamshabad, passengers were requested to remove valuables from the hand baggage and provided a sling bag to keep the medicines and valuables, if any and to that effect, a message was put in the DCS check-in system. Even in the notice dated 07.04.2013, nowhere it is mentioned that the hand baggage contained valuables. In the e-mail dated 15.07.2012 it was mentioned that the baggage contained clothes and medicines, whereas, in the complaint it is alleged as valuables. The Complainant is entitled for compensation on weight-loss basis only i.e., 17 SDR per KG amounting to SDR 136 equivalent to USD 203.95 for total 8 kgs and not entitled as claimed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency in service on their part.
8) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and Exs.A1 to A6 while the Opposite parties got filed the evidence affidavit of one Meenakshi Mallik, Station Manager of OP No.1 and the document Ex.B1.
9) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.138/2013 by orders dated 31.01.2014, as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.
10) Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellants/Opposite parties preferred this appeal contending that the forum below (a) failed to take note that the passenger had not complained to Air India Airport office at JFK Airport and no complaint was registered about the missing bag in writing; (b) failed to see that in the e-mail dated 13.07.2012, the colour of bag is mentioned as blue weighing 8 Kgs and the contents were stated to be clothes and medications and no-where it is mentioned as silk sarees and medical records; (c) failed to see that even in the notice dated 07.04.2013, it was mentioned that the missing bag contained pants, shirts, sarees, medicines, medical records but not the valuables; (d) failed to consider the “Montreal Convention” applicable to the International Carriage, as per which, the legal liability is SDR 1000 (Special Drawing Rights) per ticketed passenger, per which the Respondent was entitled for 17 special drawing rights i.e., 17 per kg for 8 Kgs equivalent to USD 203.95. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the District Forum.
11) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
12) It is not in dispute that the Respondent purchased two tickets to travel to New Jersey from Hyderabad via Delhi. It is also not in dispute that the hand baggage in question was handed over to the flight attendants of the Appellants on the date of travel. The only dispute is that the baggage was not returned to the Respondent at the time of alighting the flight at New Jersey.
13) The Respondent could contend that as he was not conversant with English, with the assistance of co-passengers, he lodged complaint with the Appellants at the Airport as regards non receipt of hand baggage. Ex.A4 and A5 would clearly establish that the daughter of Respondent lodged complaint with the Appellants claiming the baggage and the valuables thereof. From these documents, it is also evident that the daughter of Respondent furnished the relevant information at the first instance. In the e-mails dated 13.07.2012 and 15.07.2012, it was clearly mentioned as follows:
(In the mail dated 13.07.2012),
“Hello,
My father travelled on AI 101 that reached JFK yesterday i.e., on 12th July. He stated at Hyderabad, India (AI 127) on 11th and he was asked to check in his cabin bag. The same bag is missing upon his arrival and we have tried to find the status several time with no success. He has lot of valuables in that bag including his medications.
It is very important that he gets the bag immediately. Here is the ref number I found on the receipt-BN11 SN6E. Could you please let us know the status?”
(In the mail dated 15.07.2012),
“Hello,
I have attached the tag number in my previous mail. It was taken at the gate and that was all he was given.
Some of his medications are related to BP and Sugar.
It is disappointing that his luggage was taken at the gate by mentioning that the flight was small and you are still not able to trace. I have given all the description in my previous email. Please help immediately as he is without clothes and medications now.”
14) Admittedly, the Appellants did not deny to have received the e-mails from the daughter of the Respondent. The Appellants would only contend that as per the Montreal Convention, their liability is limited to SDR 1000 (Special Drawing Rights) per ticketed passenger and the Respondent is entitled for weight basis of the baggage @ SDR 17 i.e., 17 per Kg for 8 kgs equivalent to USD 203.95. From the mails sent on behalf of the Respondent, it was clearly mentioned that the baggage contained the valuables, though the same are not mentioned.
15) Though the Appellants contended that they would have sent world tracer message throughout their network to trace the missing baggage, no effort is made in that regard in spite of receiving the complaint of missing bag even by 13.07.2012. To show their bonafides, no communication is made from the side of the Appellants that the Respondent is entitled for 17 SDRs as per Montreal Convention. Even it is not stated as to whether they had sent any world tracer message and what the net result is. Admittedly, the alleged Montreal Convention copy or the guidelines thereof are not filed either before the forum below or before this Commission to appreciate their plea. Had really the Appellants were benevolent towards the passengers, nothing prevented them from depositing the 17 SDRs amount before the forum below at the first instance immediately after receipt of notice. Instead, the Appellants went on challenging the proceedings without there being any denial of missing of baggage in their custody.
16) On other hand, though it is the case of the Respondent that he had lost the hand baggage containing valuables, the same were not described except stating that the bag contained silk sarees, medicines, some important documents and medical records pertaining to the Respondent and his wife. At the first instance, in the e-mail dated 13.07.2012, it was informed that the bag contained lot of valuables including medications and in the e-mail dated 15.07.2012, it is informed that the bag is blue coloured small suit case weighing about 8 kgs containing clothes and medications. Nowhere, either in the e-mails or in the notice got issued by the Respondent, the value of the missing articles was mentioned except stating in the complaint that the worth of the articles is above Rs.1,00,000/-.
17) It is obligatory on the part of the Respondent to furnish the descriptive particulars of the articles contained in the bag, item-wise and its worth, which the Respondent failed to furnish. A vague and bald assertion is made that the value of the bag is worth Rs.1,00,000/- and above without any proof. As against this, the Appellants would contend that the Respondent is entitled for 17 SDRs per kilogram. And in that matter, SDR (Special Drawing Right) is a unit of currency issued by IMF as per the “Montreal Convention”. The value of 17 SDRs is shown at Rs.11,360.216 as on 12.07.2012, which is not acceptable under any stretch of imagination in view of the fact that the same is not paid by the Appellants, though admitted. However, the compensation awarded by the forum below is on high side. In these circumstances, we feel it just and necessary to direct the Appellants to pay the value of 17 SDRs per kilogram at the rate existing as on this day.
18) In the above facts and circumstances, we feel it just and proper to modify the impugned orders dated 31.01.2014 passed in CC No.138/2013 setting aside the awarded amount of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of contents of the baggage and direct the Appellants to pay 17 SDRs per kilogram at the rate existing as on this day and reduce the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The point framed for consideration in paragraph No.11, supra, is answered accordingly.
19) In the result, the order of the Forum below is modified setting aside the awarded amount of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of contents of the baggage and direct the Appellants to pay 17 SDRs per kilogram at the rate existing as on this day and further reduce the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal and parties to bear their own costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 18.10.2016
