Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

38/2014

Bijay Sairna - Complainant(s)

Versus

SriLankan Airlines Ld,Vijaya Towers - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

06 May 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  17.02.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  06.05.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 06^th  DAY OF MAY 2016

 

 

C.C.NO.38/2014

 

Bijoy Saima,

W-131, III Street,

Anna Nagar Western Extension,

Chennai – 600 101.

 

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs.

	SriLankan Airlines Ltd., Vijaya Towers, No.4, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  03.03.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

Counsel for Opposite party                      :Mr.O.S.Karthikeyan

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant travelled from Chennai to Rome in the opposite Party Sri Lankan Airlines Flight No. UL 124 on 15.11.2011 and reached Rome around 15.09 hours on 16.11.2011 with a delay of one hour. On reaching Rome Air-Port the Complainant did not find his baggage. He contacted flight care and then one Mrs.Vinoli took the Complainant’s Complaint and his contact details and his       E-mail address. The Complainant also sent an E-mail on 17.11.2011 and thereafter received a call on 18.11.2011 from flight care advising him that he would get his luggage on Saturday morning. However till afternoon of Saturday he would not collect his baggage and at 16.30 hours, he found that the baggage has not arrived and finally he collected his baggage on Sunday 20.11.2011 evening.   After reaching home, he checked the contents bag and noticed his camera had been stolen and removed from the suitcase. The Complainant made Complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and also IGP at Colombo and Airport Police, Florence. In accordance with Regulation, the Complainant made a claim through fax and e-mail on 29.11.2011. The Airlines offered only a sum of 70 USD on 24.11.2011. The Complainant suffered due to delay in delivering of his baggage with mental agony and put to hardship, the Complainant is entitled for compensation for delay in delivery of this baggage and pilferage of his camera. Hence this Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BREIEF

          The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant travelled in his flight and his baggage was collected and handed over to him only on 20.11.2011 and in view of that there is no loss of baggage to the Complainant. As per Article 8.3.4 of      Sri Lankan Airlines Conditions of Carriage of Passengers and Baggage wherein passengers  are advised not to include valuables such as money,  jewellery, precious metals, computers, personal electronic devices, negotiable papers, securities or other valuables,  in their baggage without knowledge of the carrier  and the airline was not responsible for any  loss or damage to such items. Since the baggage was handed over to the Complainant, he is not entitled for any compensation, even if at all entitled the liability of the Opposite Party restricted to 1000 SDRs in terms of Indian Rupees and nothing more and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT:1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant travelled on 15^th day of November 2011 from Chennai to Rome at the Opposite Party Sri Lankan Airlines Flight No.UL124 and reached Rome around 15.09 hours on 16.11.2011 and on reaching Rome the Complainant baggage was not found and then the Complainant made a Complaint to Mrs.Vinoli and thereafter with a 4 days delay on 20.11.2011 the baggage was collected by the Complainant at the Airport.

 

          5. According to the Complainant the Opposite Party has committed the following Deficiency in Service.

          1. Delay in delivery of the baggage and

          2. Camera of the Complainant was not found in his suitcase and the

             same was stolen  by some person of the Opposite Party.

 

          6. The Opposite Party admits that there is a delay in delivery of the baggage and however disputes the theft of camera of the Complainant.

          7. The Complainant took his baggage at the Airport and on reaching home he had checked his items in the baggage and found that the camera was missing. Having, the Complainant collected the baggage at the Airport, since the same was delivered after 4 days, he ought to have checked his belongings in the baggage at the airport itself and if he found missing anything he could have very well made Complaint with the Opposite Party at the airport itself.  Sri Lankan Airlines Flight general condition of carriage for passengers and baggage is marked as Ex.B2. In Ex.B2 Article 8.3.4 reads as follows:

        You must not include in checked Baggage money, jewellery, precious metals, computers, personal electronic devices, negotiable papers, securities or other valuables, business documents, passports and other identification documents or samples.

As per the above Article the passengers should not include in the checked baggage valuables including personal electronic devices. The camera is the personal electronic device of the Complainant. Therefore he ought not to have packed the camera in the baggage. Therefore as per the above article in Ex.B2 and also the Complainant has not checked his belongings at the airport, the Opposite Party is not liable for the loss of camera of the Complainant if any.

          8. Admittedly the Complainant’s baggage was delivered to him with a delay of 4 days. Though the Opposite Party would contend that there is no loss to the Complainant and the baggage was delivered to him, he is not entitled for any compensation and even if at all eligible the liability is  restricted to 1000 SDRs in terms of Indian Rupees.

          Rule 22(2) of the Third Schedule of the carriage by Air Act 1972 reads as follows:

       (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 delivery at destination.

As per the above rule the liability of the carrier in respect of destruction of baggage, loss, damages or delay shall be limited 1000 SDRs for each passengers. In the case in hand also, the baggage was delivered to the Complainant with 4 days delay, he is entitled for 1000 SDRs from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party would contend that as per rule 20 of the said Act the passengers contributed negligence, the carrier is not liable even in the case of missing of baggage. In the case in hand the Complainant arrived at the airport as schedule and however the baggage was delivered with 4 days delay to the Complainant and for delivering the baggage with 4 days delay, no way the Complainant contributed any negligence for delay in delivering the baggage and on the other hand it is the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service by delivering the baggage with 4 days delay.

9. POINT-2

           The Opposite Party relied an order passed by the National Commission reported IV (2005) CPJ 186 (NC) (Beechins Creation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. T.M.A.International Airlines) that the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount or compensation to the Complainant.  The National Commission held in that order that relying  on the provision of rule 27(1) of the 2^nd schedule of the carriage by Air Act, Airlines cannot be liable especially in view of rule 20 of the 2^nd schedule of the carriage by Air Act. Rules 20 and 21(1) deals with only in respect of damage occurred to the baggage and not in respect of the missing articles. Hence in the case in hand the Complainant did not allege that   the damages in the baggage, he claims only compensation for delay in delivery of baggage after 4 days. For delay in delivery, the 3^rd schedule of the said Act rule 22(2) prescribes the award 1000 SDRs for each passengers, the Opposite Party also admitted in the written version that the liability can be limited up to 1000 SDRs and therefore the Complainant is entitled for compensation for the delay in delivery of the baggage for the 1000 SDRs equivalent to the Indian Rupees besides the cost of the proceedings.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay to the Complainant 1000 SDRs  equivalent Indian value in  rupees  towards  compensation  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.  The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 06^th day of May 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 22.06.2011                   Copy of E-Ticket Receipt

Ex.A2 dated 16.11.2011                   Copy of Property Irregularity Report

Ex.A3 dated 15.11.2011                   Copy of Boarding pass and Baggage Identification

                                               Number

Ex.A4 dated 17.11.2011                   Copy of Bill of purchase of Merchandise at

                                               Esselunga

Ex.A5 dated 19.11.2011                   Copy of Bill of purchase of Merchandise at

                                               Carrefour

Ex.A6 dated 24.11.2011                   Refusal E-mail

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated  NIL                              Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of the European

                                                   Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004

 

Ex.B2 dated  NIL                    Srilankan Airlines Conditions of Carriage for

                                               Passengers and Baggage.

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                              PRESIDENT