BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1422/2007 against C.C. 104/2006, Dist. Forum, Tirupathi
Between:
1) Air Deccan
Rep. by its Manager
Baggage Service
Dum Dum Airport
Kokatta.
2) Air Deccan
Rep. by its Manager
Kamaraj Domestic Terminal Baggage Services
Chennai. *** Appellants/
Ops 1 & 2
And
1) K. Venkata Swamy
Forest Range Officer, Puttur
R/o. 18-1-26/1D, Dwaraka Nagar
Tirupathi, *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2) Sri Sai Jyothi Air Travel
Air Deccan Agent
Simplyfly, Tirupathi. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. Vijaya Sagi.
Counsel for the Respondent: : M/s. M. Hari Babu (R1)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER.
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by opposite parties 1 & 2 against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards missing of baggage and Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he booked to and fro tickets from Chennai-Kolkatta on 5.8.2006, Kolkatta- Baghdogra on 6.8.2006, Baghdogra-Kolkatta on 19.8.2006 and Kolkatta-Chennai on 19.8.2006 through opposite party No. 3 travel agent at Tirupathi. While so, while returning from Kolkatta-Chennai on 19.8.2006 he entrusted two bags for being delivered at Chennai air-port . As it was found excess weight of 13 Kgs he paid Rs. 910/- @ Rs. 70/- per Kg. However, on arrival they could deliver only one bag. The other bag weighing 12 Kgs of weight worth Rs. 38,000/- was missing. Thereupon he complained stating that the articles worth Rs. 38,000/- were kept in it. When they did not respond despite his demands, he gave legal notice on 5.9.2006 for which they did not reply nor pay, and therefore he filed the complaint claiming Rs. 38,000/- together with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs.
3) The airlines/appellants did not choose to contest the case, and was set-exparte.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A9 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant could not prove that bag contained articles worth Rs. 38,000/-, however granted Rs. 20,000/- by invoking Schedule-II Rule 22 of Carriage/Air Act, 1972. together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the airlines preferred the appeal contending that there was no deficiency in service on their part for missing baggage. The provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 enables a passenger to claim Rs. 300/- per kg when the passenger had not declared the list of items. Rule 22(2a) of Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 prescribes the maximum liability of the carrier @ Rs. 300/- per kg for the baggage lost or damaged. Therefore it prayed that the appeal be allowed and order be passed accordingly.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had entrusted two bags to the appellants airlines in order to deliver at Chennai while travelling from Kolkatta to Chennai by air. Admittedly one of the bags weighing 12 Kgs was not delivered which shows ex-facie negligence on the part of airlines. The complainant claimed that he kept the articles worth Rs. 38,000/-. However, there was no proof that he kept the articles worth Rs. 38,000/-. Evidently he did not declare value of the contents of the bag. It is a domestic airline, and not international air flight.
9) In the light of the fact that it is a domestic air flight The Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and rules framed there under are applicable to the instant case. Rule 22(2) (a) of the second schedule of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 prescribes the maximum limit of compensation against loss or damaged baggage @ 250 francs. The relevant portion of the law is reproduced herein below :
“Clause- 22(2)(a) - In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per Kg. unless the passenger or consigner has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum of not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that sum is greater than the passenger’s or consigner’s actual interest in delivery at destination.
The very appellants mentioned that there was amendment to Sub-Rule (3) of the Rule 1 of Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 which reads as follows :
“That the amendment in the aforesaid Rule 22(2)(a) by way of notification regarding application of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 to Carriage by Air which is not international dt. 30.3.1973, the figures and words “250” francs have been converted in Indian currency i.e., equivalent to Indian Rs. 300/-. The aforesaid amendment reads as follows :
In rule 22 – in clause (a) of sub-rule (2) for the figures and words “250” francs the words “rupees three hundred shall be substituted.”
(3) For the purpose of these rules, ‘carriage by air’ not being international carriage’ means any carriage in which according to the agreement of the parties, the place of departure and destination are both situated in India and there is no agreed stopping place outside India. “
10) This aspect of the matter was not disputed by the complainant even. Since the starting point as well as destination are within the territory of India the provisions as described above are applicable in the instant case the maximum liability of the carrier is Rs. 300/- per Kg of the baggage lost or damaged. Since the complainant himself alleged that the weight of baggage was 12 Kgs only he was entitled to Rs 3,600/-. If really articles worth Rs. 38,000/- were kept, he could have declared in the requisite form. In the light of the fact that there was admitted negligence on the part of airlines, for consequent mental agony etc. caused to the complainant, it should compensate. The complainant was not only lost the articles but also was denied its usage for all these days. Considering the value of the articles, which he claimed at Rs. 38,000/-, we are of the opinion that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- could be awarded in all Rs. 13,600/- together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. . In the light of the fact that we are awarding compensation, we do not intend to award any interest on the value of the baggage.
11) In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the Dist. Forum directing the appellants to pay Rs. 13,600/- to the complainant together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 22. 03. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
