BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 98/2007 Filed on 13.04.2007

Dated : 30.08.2010

Complainant:

Natarajapillai Kumar, S/o Nataraja Pillai, Main Road, Chunkankadai, Chunkankadai P.O, Kanyakumari District.

(By adv. M. Ashokpadma Raj)

Opposite parties :

1. Regional Manager, Gulf Air Company, Trivandrum International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Airport Manager, Gulf Air Company, Trivandrum International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 30.06.2010, the Forum on 30.08.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant travelled in Gulf Air flight from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram on 14.01.2007, that on 15.01.2007 at about 6 am when the flight landed at Thiruvananthapuram he rushed to the baggage clearing place to collect his briefcase, but the same was found missing, that he had reported loss of his baggage on his arrival at Thiruvananthapuram, but no proper response was made by the opposite parties. Complainant sent advocate notice to the opposite parties claiming Rs. 2,35,000/- as cost of the lost items and compensation, that on 16.03.2007 opposite party gave a reply to him admitting their fault and forced him to receive 150 dollar as compensation, that complainant claimed Rs. 1,35,000/- towards the cost of articles contained in the baggage and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation. Opposite parties failed to pay the said amount. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,35,000/- to the complainant as the cost of the items contained in the briefcase along with Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation.

Opposite parties filed version contending interalia that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that complainant travelled in Gulf Air flight from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram on 14.01.2007 and that he had reported loss of hand baggage on his arrival at Thiruvananthapuram. He had raised a Property Irregularity Report in opposite party's office denoting weight of baggage as 6 kg, that consequent on the report of loss of baggage, opposite party had taken all efforts to trace out the same by sending world wide tracer messenger, but it did not succeed and it was in that circumstance opposite party offered a sum equivalent to 120 US dollar in full and final settlement of the claim without admitting any liability, that the said offer was unreasonably refused by the complainant. The items listed out in the complaint are absolutely incorrect, that the claim is made with intention of making unjust enrichment, that in the absence of any such declaration regarding the contents of the baggage, the maximum liability of the Airlines in case of loss of baggage is statutorily limited to 20 US dollar per kg. Opposite party had offered it. Opposite party had not committed any fault or deficiency in service. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation? If so, at what quantum?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit as PW1 and has marked Exts. P1 to P18. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed affidavit.

Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, complainant travelled in Gulf Air Flight from Dubai to Trivandrum on 14.01.2007 and had reported loss of his hand baggage on his arrival at Trivandrum and had raised a Property Irregularity Report (PIR) in the Airport office of Gulf Air International Airport, Trivandrum. It has been the case of the complainant that many household articles like 1222 B Chain, 525255 Navaratna, D4 Swiss Watch, Saree(2), CD Player (DVD), Cell Phone (Nokia), Clothes, Perfumes, Tiger palm, DD etc. worth Rs. 1,34,504/- were placed inside of the hand briefcase, that many times he visited Trivandrum and enquired about the loss of the briefcase but no proper response from the opposite party, that on 14.03.2007 complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party demanding Rs. 2,35,000/- as cost of the lost items and compensation, that on 16.03.2007 2^nd opposite party gave a reply to him by admitting their fault and forced him to receive 150 dollars as compensation, and that on 23.03.2007 opposite parties sent a reply to the lawyer notice by admitting their fault. Complainant's evidence consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P18. Ext. P1 is the copy of the passport. Ext. P2 is the flight ticket. Ext. P3 and P4 are the copies of the advocate notices dated 14.03.2007 addressed to opposite parties. Ext. P5 is the copy of the speed post receipt dated 14.03.2007. Ext. P7 & P8 are the acknowledgement cards. Ext. P9 is the reply notice dated 16.03.2007 from the 2^nd opposite party to complainant stating their apologies for not being able to trace out the lost hand bag and offering a total of USD 150 as full and final settlement of the claim. Ext. P10 is the reply notice to advocate notice. Ext. P11 is the copy of the letter dated 13.02.2007 from the complainant to opposite parties requesting them to make necessary arrangement to get the baggage back to him. Ext. P12 is the invoice dated 11.01.2007 issued by Alukkas Karama Centre, Dubai. On perusal of Ext. P12 the price of 1222 B chain 22K is 2191 DHMS. Ext. P13 is the invoice dated 12.01.2007 issued by Alukkas Karama Centre, Dubai wherein the price of 525255 Navaratna stated is 1497 DHMS. Ext. P14 is the cash memo dated 11.01.2007 issued by City Moments Trading, Dubai wherein price of D4 Swiss stated as 290 DHS. Ext. P15 is the bill dated 10.01.2007 issued by Lulu Centre for sale of various saree at different rates. Ext. P16 is the bill issued by Lulu Centre. Ext. P17 is the copy of power link contracting. Ext. P18 is the copy of the Baggage Claim Questionnaire. It is pertinent to point out that all the items mentioned in the complaint except CD Player (DVD) and cell phone have been supported by Exts. P12 to P18. In his cross examination, PW1 has deposed that the lost hand bag has a weight of 6-7 kg. PW1 has further deposed in addition hand bag, there was a carton. PW1 denied the suggestion put by opposite party that the items mentioned in Ext. P12 to P15 were in the carton. It has been contended by the opposite parties that the weight of the lost baggage was 6 kg, and that opposite parties had offered a sum equivalent to 150 US dollars for full and final settlement of the claim which was refused by the complainant. It has been contended by opposite parties that complainant's hand baggage happened to be returned at the boarding gate due to security reason as it was not conforming to the overhead cabin space inside the airport, that complainant had not made declaration of special interest in delivery at destination nor paid any supplementary charges, that in the absence of such declaration the maximum liability of the Airlines in the case of loss of baggage is statutorily limited to 20 US dollar per kg. As per Ext. P9 reply sent by opposite party to complainant, opposite party had offered a total of 150 US dollar as full and final settlement of his claim. According to complainant the amount offered by the opposite party is insufficient while the contents of the hand baggage was of much high value. Complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- on account of cost of lost items in the briefcase and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation. Almost all the items listed in the complaint except CD player (DVD) and cell phone were supported by documents (Exts. P12 to P18). Complainant has admitted in his cross examination that there was one carton in addition to the hand briefcase. It remains uncertain whether the listed items in the complaint were in the hand briefcase or in the carton. Normally we can guess that the costly items like chain, Navaratna etc. may be kept in the hand baggage and other items in the carton. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence we cannot grand the cost of the entire listed items as claimed in the complaint. But it is the fact that the loss of baggage is admitted by the opposite party and opposite party had offered 150 US Dollar as compensation. Deficiency in service proved. In view of the above discussions and evidence available on records in this case, we think it is unjust and improper to resort to the limited liability rules of the Airlines Authority. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of baggage and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of baggage and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation within two months from the date of receipt of the order and in case of default, the above amounts will carry interest at the rate of 9%. There will be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of August 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 98/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - N. Kumar

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of the passport.

P2 - Flight Ticket.

P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 14.03.2007

P4 - Copy of advocate notice dated 14.03.2007

P5 - Copy of the speed post receipt dated 14.03.2007

P6 - Copy of the speed post receipt dated 14.03.2007

P7 - Acknowledgement card.

P8 - Acknowledgement card.

P9 - Reply notice dated 16.03.2007

P10 - Reply notice to advocate notice

P11 - Copy of letter dated 13.02.2007 from the complainant

P12 - Invoice dated 11.01.2007

P13 - Invoice dated 12.01.2007

P14 - Cash memo dated 11.01.2007

P15 - Bill dated 10.01.2007

P16 - Bill issued by Lulu Centre.

P17 - Copy of power link contracting

P18 - Copy of the Baggage Claim Questionnaire

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb