Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/13/1303

Sri. Kallur Subhash, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice Jet Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sr. S.S. Nagarale

28 May 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 12.07.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 28.05.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1303/2013

DATED THIS THE 28^th MAY OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Kallur Subhash,

R/at no.18/1, Sangam,

3^rd cross, Gopalappa layout, KHB Main Road, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-32

 

By Adv.Sri.Santhosh.S.Nagarale     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. Spice Jet ltd.,

Customer Relations Department, No.319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon-122016.

Haryana.

Rep by its

Managing Director

 

2. The Manager,

Customer Relations,

Spice Jet ltd.,

Bengaluru International ltd., Devanahalli,

Bengaluru.

 

By In person

Sri.Dennis Almeida,

Supervisor B’luru Station, Employee of Op company

 

and By Sri.Govind Mehrotra, Executive (legal and co., affairs)

 

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1 & 2 (herein after referred as Op.no.1 & 2 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the loss caused to him due to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Op. Further direct them to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony with cost and to grant such other reliefs deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he had travelled in the Op’s flight from Hyderabad to Bengaluru on 18.04.12 through flight no.SG872. The Complainant procured the above said tickets by paying travel fare. The Complainant in the Hyderabad Airport did ‘through check in’ of his baggage up till Bengaluru. It is the case of the Complainant that, he boarded the flight on 18.04.12 at Hyderabad through the said flight at 7.35 p.m. and reached Bengaluru. On arrival he went to collect his baggage from the Bengaluru airport baggage counter and to his utter shock and disbelief the baggage was missing. The Complainant immediately went to the said counter and filed the missing report. The baggage consisted camera of Rs.10,000/-, gold chain 50 grams of Rs.1,50,000/- and new clothes of Rs.40,000/-, totally Rs.2 lakhs. The Complainant further submits that, he did not receive any communication from Op regarding the same. Hence, he has issued legal notice dtd.01.05.12. Op.no.1 has sent a letter dtd.16.05.12 with cheque for Rs.2,000/- for the loss of baggage. Aggreived by reply in unsatisfactory terms, the Complainant sent again a legal notice dtd.02.09.12 requesting upon the authorities to compensate for the loss caused by the negligence and deficiency of service of the Op. A reply was sent by Op refusing to compensate the loss and blamed the Complainant for the loss cuased.  Due to the negligence and deficiency of service of the Op, the Complainant is put to monetary damages, mental agony and therefore the Ops are liable to compensate the Complainant. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op.no.1 & 2 did appear and filed version.  The sum and substance of the version of the Ops are that, Complainant has sought exorbitant compensation from this forum including damages and litigation charges. Ops submit that, the relevant provisions contained in the Carriage by Air Act make it absolutely clear that the liability of an airline is limited as provided therein. The rights and liabilities of passengers and air carriers are governed by the Carriage by Air Act 1972, which contains schedules I and II which respectively incorporate the Warsaw Convention, 1929 and the Hague Protocol, 1955. India is signatory to both these conventions and the protocol and hence the said schedules of the said Act are applicable to the parties of this complaint. Ops further submit that, having booked the ticket, the Complainant who was well aware and conversant about the terms & conditions contained in the e-ticket. It is amply clear that, as per the said terms & conditions, which is a contract between the parties, at the first instance, the passengers are advised not to carry any valuable articles in the check in baggage and carry the same in carry on. However, the aforesaid clauses further stipulate the liability of the Op, which is limited to Rs.200/- per kg. with a maximum of Rs.3,000/-. Further submits that, the weight of the baggage was 10.00 kg. and as per the aforesaid statuary liability. The Ops searched the lost baggage, conducted internal inquiry with all the airports to search the said baggage and when the Ops could not trace out the said baggage despite sincere efforts, the Ops sent a cheque for Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant in full and final settlement of the issues. Further submits that after remitting the said amount to the Complainant as per the terms of carriage, the Op is under no other or further liability to remit any other amount to the Complainant, on any account, whatsoever. As admitted by the Complainant himself, the Complainant accepted the said cheque without and demur and protest and has also enchased the same on 30.05.12 as full and final settlement of his issues. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A6. The Manager – Legal of Ops filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-B1 to B5. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?    
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the joint version filed by the Ops. It is not in dispute that, the Complainant has lost his bag. It is also not in dispute that, the weight of the lost bag was 10 kg. It is the case of the Complainant that, the said bag was consisting three items (1) Camera worth Rs.10,000/- (2) Gold chain 50 grams of Rs.1,50,000/- and (3) New clothes worth Rs.40,000/-, in all Rs.2 lakhs. In this context, the contention taken by Ops are that, the Complainant never supposed to put the costly items like camera, gold etc., Even if he has put the said articles in the said lost bag, he ought to have declared the value of the said articles. We find there is considerable force in the contention taken by Ops in the light of the Article 22(2) of the schedule III of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 which reads thus:

Article 22(2): (2) In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay shall be limited to one thousand special drawing rights for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum, if so required. In that case, the carrier shall be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger’s actual interest in deliver at destination.

 

8. Ops also taken another specific contention that, their liability is very limited. Further contended that, as per the terms & conditions as enumerated in Ex-B2 inkpage no.16, wherein it is stated as “The carrier’s liability for loss or damage to baggage is limited to Rs.200/- per kg., with a maximum of Rs.3,000/- only. The carrier assumes no liability for fragile or perishable articles”. Referring to this clause submits that, Complainant is bound by the said terms & conditions in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in (1996) 4 SCC 704 in the case of Bharathi Knitting co., vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Air Fright ltd., In this context, further submits that, Op has already sent an amount of Rs.2,000/- (i.e. 10 kg. X Rs.200/- per kg.) through cheque as per Ex-AD produced by the Complainant. The said cheque bearing no.010342 dtd.26.04.12 issued by Yes Bank for an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been received by the Complainant and get it encashed. When such being the fact, complaint filed by the Complainant has no legs to stand. We find there is considerable force in the contention taken by Ops as its liability is limited to an extent of Rs.200/- per kg. and maximum to an extent of Rs.3,000/-. Hence, we do not find any laxity much less the deficiency of service on the part of Ops. Accordingly, complaint filed by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed and we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

 

         9. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed.  

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 28^th May 2018).

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Kallur Subhash, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-AA	Ticket
Ex-AB	Irregularity baggage
Ex-AC	Legal notice
Ex-AD	Cheque
Ex-AE	Legal notice
Ex-AF	Reply letter

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Vijay Roy, who being the Manager – Legal of Op was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

Ex-B1	Citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting company vs. DHL worldwide express courier division of air fright ltd., dtd.09.05.1996
Ex-B2	Terms of carriage
Ex-B3	Notification regarding application of the carriage by Air Act, 1972
Ex-B4	Account activity - statement
Ex-B5	Baggage irregularity report

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT