Indian Airlines, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present review petition.

          Case of the complainant in brief is that on 10.4.1992 she travelled from Bangalore to Bombay by Indian Airlines flight No. IC- 110.  On arrival at Bombay, she was astonished to find that her two pieces of registered baggage had not arrived.  Immediately, she lodged a complaint at the Bombay airport.   The two pieces of baggage arrived on 11.4.1992.  While identifying the luggage in the presence of employees of airlines, she was shocked to find that they had been tampered with.  The suitcase has been unlocked and the zip of the sky bag has been torn off.  A gold necklace, 2 ear rings, a finger ring, a bracelet, a mangalsutra chain, two sarees, two T shirts, a Canon camera and a pair of sandals were found missing.   She gave a handwritten complaint mentioning all the items, which was received by an officer of the Indian Lines.

          Six months later she received a reply from the airlines expressing their inability to pay the compensation.  It was also stated that though the checked in baggage at Bangalore weighed 20 kgs., when it was delivered at Bombay it was found to be 25 kgs. and, therefore, there was no loss of luggage. 

          Before the District Forum, it was contended by the Indian Airlines that complainant failed to identify the baggage before being loaded in the aircraft and, therefore, to avoid delay, the flight took off, sans two baggages.  It was alleged that the complainant had neither disclosed the contents of the baggage while checking-in, nor had she taken precautions to insure the contents, and if ever any liability comes to be fastened on the airlines it would be limited to Rs. 300/- per kg for baggage lost or damaged.  The District Forum after due consideration of the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and consequently ordered the Indian Airlines to pay compensation of Rs. 12,000/- within two months of the order,  failing which to pay 18% interest from the date of the expiry of the said two months till payment.  Rs. 500/- were awarded by way of costs.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Forum.

          Petitioner thereafter filed a Revision Petition before this Commission which was dismissed on 16.8.2007.

          Petitioner thereafter filed a review application which came up before the Bench which had dismissed the Revision Petition.  K.S. Gupta, J., accepted the review petition and held that a carrier is liable to compensate the passenger of a registered baggage only on weight loss unless special declaration of value is made at destination and supplementary amount is paid.  In case such a declaration is made and amount paid, the carrier is liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum.  Since the respondent had admitted in cross-examination that such declaration was not made not had the respondent paid any supplementary amount, the respondent was entitled to the statutory amount of Rs.300/- only.  Accordingly K.S. Gupta, J., modified the order passed by the State Commission and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.300/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum after two months of the date of order of the District Forum till realization.

          Dr.P.D. Shenoy, the other Member took a contrary view.  Though he agreed with K.S. Gupta, J. on facts but did not agree that the respondent was entitled to only the statutory amount of compensation of Rs.300/- only.  Dr.Shenoy upheld the order of the State Commission and reaffirmed its earlier decision dated 16.8.2007. 

Respondent, in spite of repeated service, did not put in appearance at any stage before this Commission.

Mr.Bhasin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, very graciously states that the amount being very small, petitioner would pay the awarded amount along with interest at the rate of 10% to the respondent provided the question of law on which there is difference of opinion between the two Members of this Commission be left open.

In view of the statement made by Shri Bhasin, Revision Petition is disposed of leaving the question of law open.

Mr.Bhasin states that the payment shall be made to the respondent within a period of two months from today.