KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 437/12

JUDGMENT DATED. 30.11.2012

PRESENT:-

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA              :   MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.        The Manager,

      Indian Airlines Ltd., No.113,

      Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road,

      New Delhi – 110 001

2.        The Airport Manager, Indian airlines Ltd., Bangalore.

          3.   The Manager, Indian airlines Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram.

                                 (Rep. by Sri. Adv. M/s. Menon & Pai)

                            Vs

RESPONDENT

R. Jayaprakash,

‘Vijay’ T.C. 67/1164,

House No. 124, KERA, Harismrithi Lane,

Kanjirampara,

Thiruvananthapuram.

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA             :  MEMBER

          This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No. 102/2006 dated 31.08.2011.  This appeal preferred by the appellant from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The Forum below allowed this complaint and directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation along with Rs. 1000/- as cost within two months from the date of receipt of the order. 

2.  On this day, this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing; the counsel for the appellant is present and ready for hear  but there is no representation for the respondents.  A notice issued by this Commission to the respondents/complainant  which returned with endorsement that the respondent/complainant was left.

3.  In short,  this dispute which arised from the loss of baggage in transit when the complainant was traveling from Delhi to Bombay on 24.4.2005 in Indian Airlines Flight No. I.C. 506 to attend a 3 days conference at   Hubli, had carried 3 bags with him. When the flight arrived at Bangalore, it was found that one bag was missed, that complainant reported the same to the authorities of the opposite parties.   Loss of the baggage caused  heavy loss to the complainant and in the result, he purchased a new cloth box and accessories.  It is also stated in the complaint that the missing baggage contained very important files which were required for the presentation at the conference.  The baggage which  was  reported missing was immediately found that all item infact and delivered to the complainant on 27.4.2005.  The complainant alleged that the buggage that missing due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The appellant/opposite parties denied all the averments  raised by the complainant.  The opposite parties also filed detailed version and denied all the averments raised by the complainant.  The main contention is that the officials of the opposite parties did not take any action is denied.    

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of Pw1 and marked Ext. P1 to P4 and examined Dw1as witness for the opposite party and marked Exts. D1 to D4.  The Forum below discussed the entire matter after hearing both sides and appreciating evidence and found that the missing of the baggage was admitted by the opposite parties and the delay of one day in crushing towards baggage in the airport concern is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the Forum below ordered for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost Rs. 1,000/-

          5. On this day the counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not in accordance with the provisions of law and evidence.  On this day, the respondent/complainant is absent and there is no representation from any corner.  The main contention of the appellant/opposite party is that the missed baggage was traced out and it was intimated to the complainant. This is never lost irrecoverably, in the circumstance; the appellant/opposite party is only liable to pay the statutory amount fixed for the missing of luggage.  The appellant prays to allow this appeal and to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

          This Commission heard in detail and perused the entire evidence from the case bundle.  It is seen that the complainant who suffered huge loss due to the delay of the trace out of his baggage which was missed in his air journey.  As per his evidence he was compelled to purchase the clothes and other necessary articles for attending  in the conference.  It is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The Forum below ordered a very reasonable amount.  The Forum  below did not ordered for payment of interest.  The absence of the respondent/complainant is not a ground for allow the appeal.  This Commission is not seen any apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below. In the circumstance this Commission uphold the order passed by the Forum below and it is confirmed.  The points of the appeal answered accordingly.

          In the result, this appeal is dismissed without cost and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below.

          I do so.

          The Office is directed to send a copy of the judgment with L.C.R  to the Forum below.

                                                  M.K. ABDULLA SONA  :  MEMBER

st