ORDER NO. 7 DT. 29.01.2009

HON'BLE JUSTICE Mr. A.CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT

The complaint was filed before this Commission seeking relief of return of the baggage lost, damages of Rs.69,88,545/- for failing to deliver the baggage/suit-case and for mental agony and harassment as well as financial loss and cost.  The allegations made in the complaint are that the complainants started their tour on 16.5.06 from Delhi to London by British Airways OP1.  As per schedule and the booking of air ticket, the complainants went to Zurich on 23.5.06 and then to Paris on 28.5.06 and, thereafter they returned from Paris to London via Zurich on 31.5.06 and they booked four suitcases as checked baggage directly from Paris to London.  On 03.6.06 the complainants returned to Kolkata by British Airways.  On 31.5.06 four suitcases were booked by the complainants as checked baggage directly from Paris to London and Airlines Authorities issued four baggage tags.  Upon arrival at London on 31.5.06 when the complainants went to British Airways Baggage Counter for collection of the said four suitcases, only two suitcases were made available to the complainant and the OPs did not deliver the other two suitcases which remained missing.  On 01.6.06 one of the said two missing suitcases was delivered to the complainants at London at around 7:30 P.M. when the complainants surprisingly noted that the baggage tag number on this suitcase had been changed.  After return to Kolkata, the complainants sent a Notice to the OPs in reply whereto the OP asked the complainants to forward the value of the contents to British Airways, Kolkata to settle the claim.  The complainants sent list along with the value of the contents left in the said suitcase.  But inspite of reminders when no relief was received the present complaint was filed.

            The OPs filed an application challenging maintainability of the proceeding before this Commission on a contention that exaggerated claim had been made and neither value of the contents of the lost suitcase nor the quantum of damage justify maintainability of the proceeding in the State Commission.  The complainant contested the said application by filing affidavit in opposition and also filed a statement of documents showing the value of the goods contained in the lost suitcase.

            Mr. Debdutta Basu, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant contended that value of some of the items contained in the lost suitcase have been disclosed and the complainant is entitled to disclose the value of the other contents of the said suitcase at the stage of evidence and until the matter is decided upon evidence, the challenge to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission should not be entertained.

            On behalf of the OPs in support of their application Mr. Chandranath Mukherji, Ld. Advocate stated that in various proceedings before the Hon’ble National Commission the valuation is challenged at the earliest admission stage and it is being consistently decided by the Hon’ble National Commission that such challenge if made, is to be decided even at the admission stage as otherwise an apparently not maintainable proceeding keeps the State Commission busy, as a result whereof the OP suffers in contesting the proceeding which is not maintainable.

            The judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Appeal No.95/2007 Anil Kr. Jain-Vs-Delhi Development Authority decided on 22.2.07, Appeal No.304 of 1998 J.C. Batra-Vs-M/s. Royal Jordanian decided on 01.2.07 and First Appeal No.776 of 2006 Mr. Anil Khanna-Vs- Ms. J.M.D. Promoters Ltd. decided on 14.01.07 as referred to and quoted in the judgment of the Delhi State Commission in Complaint Case No.8/90 Ms. Vrishti Dua-Vs British Airways decided on 28.5.08 were considered.  It appears that the Hon’ble National Commission repeatedly considered the question of valuation and the consequent pecuniary jurisdiction of a proceeding filed before the State Commission or the Hon’ble National Commission at the earliest stage.

Following the aforesaid we have also taken into consideration as regards prima facie satisfaction of the valuation made in the present complaint.  As regards pleadings we find that in paragraph 22 of the complaint the quantification of the compensation has been made under three heads - compensation on account of negligence for failure to handover the baggage, compensation for deficiency in service and compensation for causing harassment and mental pain and agony quantified as Rs.24,88,545/- Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 20 lacs respectively.  We do not find any basis of such calculation under each head has been indicated in the pleadings.  In course of argument on behalf of the complainant Xerox copy of the documents have been filed.  Even without going into correctness of the valuation under each head or as regards actual loss of those materials contained in the lost suitcase, we find that even in the assessment given by the complainant the total valuation comes to £3,950.36, the corresponding value in Indian currency whereof is not more than Rs.3 lacs. Therefore, the valuation of the lost goods given in the complaint as Rs.24,88,545/- is much higher, the question of valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission faces stricter scrutiny.  The Ld. Advocate for the complainant contended that all the documents showing valuation of the contents of the lost suitcases are not available in Kolkata and, therefore, the matter should wait till evidence is recorded so that the complainant gets opportunity of proving his case to his satisfaction.  As we find that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the complainant to disclose the materials for consideration by this Commission the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission in the present facts, when documents for not more than Rs.3 lacs could be produced by the complainant, there is no necessity to wait for decision in the matter any further.  Thus we come to a conclusion that as the valuation of the goods of the lost suitcase could be shown only upto Rs.3 lacs, the compensation for the said loss cannot be such by any stretch of imagination that the total valuation reaches Rs.20 lacs to make the complaint entertainable by this Commission.  In above view the complaint is dismissed but we make it clear that we have not decided contentions made in the complaint on merit and in case the complainant files any proceeding before any appropriate Forum the same may be decided in accordance with law.  With the above observation the complaint is dismissed.  

(S. Majumder)          (A.K. Ray)     (Justice A. Chakrabarti)

  MEMBER(L)           MEMBER                 PRESIDENT