BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 11/11/2011

Date of Order : 31/03/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 628/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant was a passenger in the flight of the opposite party from Srinagar to Delhi on 11-09-2011. While collecting the baggage, he found a cut of 4 to 5cm in his air bag, forthwith he lodged a complaint with the opposite party. The opposite party closed the claim of the complainant stating that the damage was merely a wear and tear. The 2 e-mails sent to the customer care of the opposite party highlighting his grievances have fallen into deaf ears. The complainant contends that he is entitled to get the cost of the ticket from Srinagar to Delhi ie. Rs. 27,586/- from the opposite parties. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party :

This complaint is not maintainable, since there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has not disclosed the contents of the baggage. The alleged damage caused to the baggage could have been existing with the same when it was handed over to the opposite party. The contents of the baggage were intact at the time of delivery of the same. This opposite party cannot be made liable for any alleged damage as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the ticket. The carrier's liability for any loss of baggage is limited to Rs. 200 per kg. with a maximum of Rs. 3,000/- only. The claim of the complainant to refund the ticket price is unreasonable per law and has no relation to the cause of action alleged by the complainant. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, since journey of the complainant was from Srinagar to Delhi and no cause of action has taken place in Kochi. The 1^st opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.

3. The 2^nd opposite party was served with a notice, but they chose to remain absent for their own reasons. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the complainant. Heard the complainant, who appeared in person and the authorised representative of the 1^st opposite party.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Forum?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the ticket charge from the opposite parties?

5. Point No. i. :- The complainant submitted that he had booked the ticket from Kochi to travel from Srinagar to Delhi which substantiates the maintainability of this complaint in this Forum. Since the ticket was booked from Kochi, we are of the view that this Forum has supreme jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. This point is answered accordingly.

6. Point No. ii. :- According to the complainant, he received his baggage in a damaged condition. During evidence, the complainant produced the disputed bag and indicated specifically the torn portion to the Forum, after physical verification the bag was returned. The 1^st opposite party vehemently contended that the damage if any of the bag has been caused due to its normal wear and tear and the complainant has not disclosed the contents of the baggage.

7. It is pertinent to note that the complainant does not have a case that the articles inside the baggage had been lost during transit, in effect, the bag alone was damaged. Immediately after he came to know about the damage of the baggage, he lodged Ext. A4 complaint before the authorities of the opposite parties in Delhi. Thereafter, he requested the opposite parties to pay the price of the bag as per the request Ext. A5 e-mail. The same complaint has been repeated in Ext. A6 e-mail dated18-09-2011. Again, he sent Ext. A7 e-mail to the opposite party highlighting his grievances. However, the opposite parties failed to respond to the same. The above conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in their service for which the opposite parties are answerable squarely. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Srilankan Airlines Ltd. Vs. The Permanent Lok Adalath 2009 (4) KLT 625, held that “therefore the airlines should be put to prima-facie proving that they took adequate and proper care to the baggage and the same was damaged or lost despite proper care.” In the instant case as well, the opposite parties failed to establish that they had taken proper care and caution in dealing with the baggage of the complainant for which the opposite parties are answerable. Though the complainant claims the refund of the cost of the ticket it is not legally called for since his basic attendance has been met since no evidence has been produced before this Forum by the complainant evidently to prove the price of the baggage. This forum is only to fix the quantum of loss at Rs. 5,000/- which includes the price of the baggage.

8. In view of the above, we allow the complaint in part and direct that the opposite parties shall pay to the complainant Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) for the reasons stated above.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till payment.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of March 2012.

Forwarded/By order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========