BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of August 2017
Filed on : 05-02-2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.91/2015
Between
Kunjumon, : Complainant
S/o. Sreedharan, (By Adv. Aravind Ghosh,
Thuppaiparambil, Alappuzha,)
Purakkad P.O.,
Alappuzha.
And
1. The Air Port Manager, : Opposite parties
Jet Airways (I) Ltd., (By Adv. George Varghese,
Kochi International Air Port, Perumpalikattiyil, 2B Kattikaran
Kochi. Chambers, Near Central Police
Station, Cochin-31)
2.The Jet Airways (I) Ltd.,
Siroya Centre,
Sahar Airport Road,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai-400 099.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. On 09-07-2014, the complainant travelled from Muscut to Kochi in flight No. 533 of M/s. Jet Airways. During his travel two baggages weighing 32 Kgs. were checked in at Muscut airport and luggage tag was issued. But when the complainant reached at Kochi airport he got only one baggage weighing 26 kgs. The remaining baggage weighting 6 kgs. was not available at Kochi airport. The said baggage contained things worth Rs. 1,00,100/- including gold ornaments. The complainant informed it to the authorities and they offered to recover the baggage without any delay. However, the baggage was not returned as promised. The opposite party did not compensate the complainant as well.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party they appeared and filed a version along with a copy of the PNR History as per their system record. The opposite party contended that they are not responsible for the loss of baggage. Their version is that two baggage were checked in at Muscat airport by the complainant and thereafter the complainant himself decided to carry the baggage weighing 6 kgs. containing valuables as hand baggage. Therefore, the opposite party had cancelled the 1st tag and issued another one after making corrections. Even though their subsidy contentions was that they have mistakenly entered the details of the cancelled tag in the new tag. The PNR history of the flight for the journey has been produced by the opposite party. Had the complainant taken two baggages with him in the flight he would have been issued with two baggage tags. The complainant had produced only one baggage tag. Therefore it is evident that the complainant had produced only one baggage tag and has checked in only one baggage in the flight. The PNR history of the flight for the journey on the said date has been produced and marked as Exbt. B1 by the opposite parties. The complainant had checked in only one baggage weighting 26 kgs. The complainant had no satisfactory explanation to offer the non-production of the baggage tag of the brief case. That will automatically cancelled by the opposite parties. Exbt. B1 reveals that the complainant had only checked in one baggage in the flight. The complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration
i. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. ?
ii. Reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. The opposite parties marked Exbts. B1 subject to objection of the opposite parties' counsel
6. Issue No. i. According to the complainant he had checked in two baggages of which one was weighing 6 kgs. However, as per the case of the opposite parties the wight of the check-in-baggage was 26 kgs. and the complainant was carrying with him the brief case which was having weight of 6 kgs. After having lost the hand baggage, according to the opposite parties the complaint had filed this complainant without any foundation. The complainant had admitted that he did not declare that the 6 kgs baggage was containing a gold chain weight 3 and a half sovereign. It must be noted that the complainant had produced the baggage ID given at the time of booking the check-in-baggage. According to the complainant due to the mental agony, consequent to the loss of baggage, he was admitted at Amrita Hospital, Ernakulam for treatment. When the baggage was not retrieved the complainant had issued Exbt. A3 Lawyer notice which was received by the opposite party as per Exbt. A4 acknowledgment. Exbt. A5 is the reply notice. Exbt. A2 is the luggage tag given to the complainant which shows that there were two baggages containing 32 kgs. Exbt. A3 is the advocate notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party which was accepted by the opposite party as per Exbt. A4 acknowledgment. Exbt. A5 is the reply notice issued by the opposite party.
7. As per the investigation records on which reliance was placed by the opposite parties that the complainant had checked in only one piece of baggage at Muscat airport as per Exbt. A2 tag having number 9W-642737 weighing 26 kgs and that baggage was handover to the complainant on his arrival at Cochin airport. The opposite parties could not locate any 2nd baggage allegedly checked in by the complainant. The opposite party produced Exbt. B1 showing that the complainant had accepted only one baggage with baggage tag number 9W COK 642737 weighing 26 kgs. The complainant on the other hand relied on Exbt. A2 tag to argue that the complainant had entrusted two bags altogether weighing 32 kgs.
8. We have made our anxious consideration on the allegations and counter allegations and perused the documents produced. It is to be noted that if there are two pieces of baggages there should have been two separate baggage tags for each one. In this case it is seen noted that the complainant had produced two bags totally weighing 32 kgs. On being found that the baggage was having excess weight in all probability the complainant must have taken the small baggage weighing 6 kgs with him, as hand baggage.
9. The complainant did not produce any evidence to substantiate his contention that he had checked in two baggages as per Exbts. A2 tag. There is nothing in evidence to show that there was a tag for a 6 kgs baggage. In Exbt. B1 entry number 53 which pertains to the complainant it is seen recorded that the complainant had checked in only one baggage weighing 26 kgs in the flight. That baggage was delivered to the complainant. The complainant has no satisfactory explanation to offer for non-production of baggage tag of the 6 kgs. weighed bag which was allegedly lost. The complainant has not discharged his burden to prove that a 6 kgs weighing baggage was checked-in with the flight. The complainant is not seen to have made any declaration regarding the value of the articles contained in the baggage allegedly lost. He is not seen to have made any Property Irregularity Report before the opposite party immediately after landing of the fight at Kochi. In the above circumstance, we find the issue against the complainant.
10. Issue No. ii. Having found issue number 1 against the complainant we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of August 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits:
Exbt. A1 : Air ticket
A2 : Tag
A3 : Layer notice dt. 23-11-2014
A4 : A.D. Card
A5 : Reply notice dt. 23-11-2014
Opposite party's Exhibits :
Exbt. B1 : PNR history
Deposition:
PW1 : Kunjummon
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post : By Hand:
