The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was traveling from Kolkata to Guwahati on 22.01.2010 by Spice Jet Airline. While checking in three luggages were registered being No SG998533, SG998534 and SG998535. On arriving in Guwahati she received only two of her baggage being No. SG998533 and SG998535 and the third luggage SG998534 was untraceable. Immediately, the Complainant reported the matter to the authorities concerned who also registered her complaint. When they could not trace the baggage, the OP told the Complainant that they will compensate her for Rs 2,700/. But Complainant was not satisfied and stated that the contents inside the baggage were worth Rs 18,000/. She was thereafter told to talk to the higher authorities and she did so accordingly. On 27.01.2010, the OP contacted her and asked her to wait for an hour and that they would contact her again but till date no information was given to her regarding neither her loss baggage nor any compensation was given to the Complainant. The Complainant therefore preferred this case before this Forum. Notice was issued and the OP filed the written statement. In the Written Statement filed by OP, it stated that the Complainant was well aware about the terms and conditions contained in the ticket. The relevant clauses of the terms and conditions stated as follows Safety and Security Spice jet highly recommends that you remove all valuables cameras, jewelry, money, electronics, perishables etc and medication from your check in baggage and place them in your carry on In case, the passenger decides to carry any valuables in their check in baggage against the above advice, they will do this at their own risk and shall not hold Spice Jet responsible for any pilferage/damage/etc to such valuable Baggage The carrier s liability for loss of 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 The OP further stated that the above terms and conditions which is a contract between the parties at the first instance, the passengers have been advised not to carry any valuables including money, currency, jewellery and other valuables and medication etc, in their check in baggage and in case the passengers do so, they shall be doing so on their own risk and cost without assuming any liability upon the carrier i.e Spicejet. Hence as stated in the terms and conditions the complainant is not liable for any compensation since she had violated the said condition by carrying valuables in the check in baggage. The weight of the baggage was found to be 13.5Kgs and the OP had remitted a sum of Rs 2,700/ by way of cheque dated 28.01.2010 drawn on Axis Bank, as such she is now estopped from espousing the said cause. OP further stated that at the time of entry to the Airport, the check in baggage as well as the cabin baggage are subjected to Xray checking and as per the strict norms and practice, whenever any cash or jewellery or any valuable electronic article or medicines are detected in any check-in baggage, the passenger is immediately called and informed about the same. The said jewellery or any valuable electronic article etc lying in the baggage can be identified under the Xray monitor. OP therefore submitted that the said baggage in question did not contain any such material, the same was allowed to be kept as the check in baggage. The OP cited some relevant and important cases on the aspect of liability i. The Manager, IA Ltd, Versus India Everbright Shipping and Trading Co. 2001 II CPJ 32 NCDRC. If damages are to be awarded it has to be within four corners of law on the subject. Section 14 I d of the CPA has to be read with the Carriage by Air Act. When there is a law defining the rights and its applications in a particular respect, that has to be followed. Viewed from this angle, when CA Act limits the liability of an air carrier to an extent, that cannot be exceeded by the forum under the CPA. Having thus considered the provision of the CA Act and various judgments on the subject, we are of the view that it is a case which falls under rule 22 of the first Schedule or the II Schedule of the CA Act. The Respondent/Complainant would be entitled to relief of US dollar 4180 at US dollar 20 per Kg for its weight of 209 Kgs of cargo. ii. Air Lanka Vs S.Prasannam 1998 I CPJ 117 SCKER iii. Gargi Parsai Vs KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 1996 I CPJ 2 SCDEL iv. Mrs Helen Walia Vrs Cathey Pacific Airways Ltd 2002 III CPJ 190 NCDRC v. Manager Oma Air Vs K.K.Abdul Aziz and Anr 2001 III CPJ 287 SCKER vii. Mohd Amiruddin Vs Station Manager, India Airlines 1999 II CPJ 298 SCAP Complainant filed An Affidavit cum Rejoinder. In her reply it is mentioned that, as far as the so called safety and security rules of the OP is concerned, it is the imperative duty of the OP to take good care of the luggage of the passenger till the time the same is handed over to the passenger in which the OP has failed miserably. It further mentioned that the luggage was neither pilferage nor damaged but lost when the same was handed over to the OP in Kolkata in their custody and the OP was duty bound to handover the same after reaching Guwahati which they failed miserably. It further mentioned that the OP is taking shelter under the laws made for the benefit of the airline carrier and passengers to hide their misdeeds and deficiency. The OP are in fact trying every negated issued to escape from their liability. It is also mentioned that Complainant claimed only for the items which she had purchased and not the clothes and other accessories. Copy of the cash memos of the items was also annexed along with the petition. Both parties filed written argument. In the written argument filed by Complainant, she argued that the OP being a service provider has failed to provide bare minimum service to her. The first instance of the deficiency and negligence of the OP is that they did not deliver the baggage of the Complainant when she arrived at the Guwahati airport and thereafter, when the Complainant was made to wait for her baggage to arrive , the OP informed the Complainant that her baggage will be delivered at her residence which was not done and finally when the Complainant came to know that her luggage is lost and lastly when the OP failed to address the grievances of the Complainant in spite of the fact that the Complainant made every effort wrote and approached all the concerned people of the OP but the OP only apologized, regretted and finally tried to wash their hand from the entire episode by paying a meager amount of Rs 2,700/ to dissolve their liability. She further argued that the OP after 5 days of missing of the baggage sent a cheque of compensation to the Complainant which clearly means that it was pre planned and well thought, also the OP have nothing to substantiate that they actually tried to locate the baggage of the Complainant. The Complainant stated that there is no denial by the OP that the said baggage was not checked in at Kolkata Airport and was in the custody of the OP and also that the said baggage is lost and it all happened when the baggage was in the custody of the OP and this fastens the liability on the OP. Also stated that she is entitled to the compensation as prayed in the complaint along with interest as the damage has been caused by the willful misconduct by the OP, this alone means that they admit their liability, hence liable to compensate. The Complainant cited that the OP are also liable under Part III, Section 18 1 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 which states that The Carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, or of damage to, any registered luggage or any goods, if the occurrence which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air. Section 19 The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, luggage or goods. It is evident that the loss of the baggage of the Complainant has been done when the baggage was under the custody of the OP. Chapter III, Section 25 1 and 2 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Schedule which excludes or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his willful misconduct or by such default on his part as is in the opinion of the Court equivalent to willful misconduct. Section 25 2 Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused as aforesaid by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment. The Complainant argued that the baggage of the Complainant was lost due to the negligent misconduct and willful destruction which is nothing but a theft of the items when the luggage of the Complainant was in the custody of the OP for which the OP is squarely liable. Complainant relies on the some case law in support of her case CPR 2010, Vol 4, 17 In the Written Argument filed by OP, the OP repeated the fact as stated in his Show Cause. OP relied on judgments passed by the National Consumer Commission in CPJ 2006 II 43 NC, wherein the Honble Commission allowed the revision petition on the basis of Rule 22 of Air Act, Schedule II. The OP also submitted before this Forum, the Notification Regarding Application Of the Carriage By Air Act, 1972 to Carriage By Air Which Is Not International. After going through the material evidence before the Forum, this Forum is of the following opinion 1. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Complainant had purchased a ticket for traveling from Kolkata to Guwahati on 22.01.2010. It is also not disputed that Complainant had loss her baggage on reaching Guwahati. The Complainant got her baggage registered with registration No. SG998534 at Kolkata, a fact which was not disputed. The question remains to be considered is whether the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs and compensation in the case. 2. As per the Baggage Irregularity Report the weight of the baggage has been specified by Complainant as well as the contents inside the baggage. OPs in their Written Statement as well as in their Written Argument have stated that the weight of the baggage was found to be 13.5 kgs. Hence OP is liable to pay Rs 2,700/ as per the provision laid down in Carriage by Air Act, 1972. 3. As for the loss of materials inside the suitcase, the Complainant has asked 18,000/. Complainant had submitted the Tax Invoice of M.L.Roy and Co. Sanitations Pvt Ltd dated 21.01.010 the total amount of which is Rs 17,578/. While examining the document on record we find that the date tallied with the traveling date. The same has been mentioned in the Baggage Irregularity Report. 4. The OP has not been able to locate the baggage till date in spite of efforts being made by them. The facts of the case established that the baggage with sanitary items inside the baggage was lost while it was in the custody of the OP and the OP has not been able to disprove the loss. Hence Complainant is liable to get compensated for the same. 5. The action of the OP in not safely keeping the baggage and delivering the same to the Complainant constituted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP in providing air transport service. The Complainant is therefore entitled to some relief in this respect also. With the above observation, we decide this case in favour of the Complainant. We therefore direct the OP to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs 2,700/ being the weight of the baggage as per terms and conditions of the Airline and also an amount of Rs 17, 578/ being the value of the sanitation items inside the baggage. We therefore direct the OP to pay to the Complainant a total amount of Rs 20,278/. We also direct that the payment to be made by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Case disposed off.