Per:- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT
The Opposite Party is an airlines company, operating flights all over the world. The Complainant traveled by a flight operated by the Opposite Party – Airlines; on 2/4/2008 and at Detroit, U.S.A., Airport, the Complainant handed over two bags in custody of the concerned staff of the Opposite Party – Airlines; and collected the tags. The Complainant arrived at Mumbai Airport in the morning of 4/4/2008 and found that out of her two bags only one bag bearing Tag No.BA-661367 was at the retrieval counter. The Complainant did not receive other two bags, which were checked in at Detroit Airport. Staff of the Opposite Party – Airlines; refused to accept her complaint and informed the Complainant that the tag numbers disclosed by the Complainant were not available in their computer system. The concerned staff of the Opposite Party – Airlines; asked the Complainant to come on the next day. On the next day, she was informed by the officer of the Opposite Party – Airlines; that two bags will come in a day or two and non-delivery of the bags was due to chaos at Terminal-5 at London Heathrow Airport. In fact, there was no such chaos. According to the Complainant, from 4/4/2008 to 6/4/2008, she had to stay with her friend and she had no other place to stay. The Complainant again contacted the Opposite Party – Airlines; on 7/4/2008 and received similar assurance.
[2] It is alleged by the Complainant that she again contacted the Opposite Party – Airlines; on 10/4/2008, 11/4/2008 and 15/4/2008, but in vain. She had to stay at the hotel during the period 25/4/2008 to 27/4/2008 for contacting the officers of the Opposite Party – Airlines. Thus, according to the Complainant, she had to come to India to attend functions at Jodhpur & Jaipur, Rajasthan; as well as she had to attend interview at Delhi. On account of non-availability of her bags, she could not attend the functions as well as appear for the interview. She lost her bags on account of willful negligence on the part of the members of the staff of the Opposite Party – Airlines. The Complainant has claimed compensation in sum of Rs.4,08,220/- besides compensation on other grounds. [3] The Opposite Party – Airlines; contested the complaint and denied the allegations in the complaint of negligence on the part of the staff of the Opposite Party – Airlines. According to the Complainant, said baggage was handed over to American Airlines at Detroit Airport, but there was an understanding between the Opposite Party – Airlines; and American Airlines. The Complainant was accommodated by the staff of the Opposite Party – Airlines. According to the Opposite Party – Airlines; the Complainant had not disclosed Credit Cards & Debit Cards kept in her baggage and thus, she had committed breach of provisions under Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The Complainant is not entitled to recover compensation for valuable documents/articles, which she was not supposed to keep in her check-in luggage. The Opposite Party – Airlines; has also referred to letters dtd.1/7/2008 & 10/7/2008, by which a sum of Rs.70,764/- was offered to the Complainant. [4] The Complainant as well as the Opposite Party – Airlines; filed their respective affidavits of evidence and documents. Both the parties have also filed their respective written notes of arguments. [5] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents as well as written notes of arguments filed by the Opposite Party. [6] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to recover compensation in sum of Rs.4,08,220/- as well as cost of other articles, as claimed in the complaint? | NO | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to receive from the Opposite Party – Airlines; an amount of Rs.70,764/-, as offered by the Opposite Party – Airlines? | YES | 3. | What order? | The complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [7] It is seen from the written notes of arguments filed by the Opposite Party – Airlines; that the Opposite Party – Airlines; had offered a sum of Rs.70,764/- to the Complainant towards settlement of her claim. Alongwith the written version, the Opposite Party – Airlines; has produced on the record a letter dtd10/7/2008, which was issued by the Opposite Party – Airlines; in response to the Complainant’s letter dtd.19/5/2008 by which the Complainant had submitted her claim. By a letter dtd.10/4/2998 (Annexure-II to the written version), the Opposite Party – Airlines; expressed an apology and offered a sum of Rs.70,764/-. It was towards advance and this is borne out from the statement in the letter that the Opposite Party – Airlines; had to assess the claim of the Complainant and till then, an amount in sum of Rs.70,764/- was offered. In the letter dtd.29/5/2008, the Opposite Party – Airlines; made it clear that their legal liability was limited where checked in luggage is concerned and valuables such as electronic articles were not covered by the Conditions of Carriage Act. The Opposite Party – Airlines; also denied the claim of the Complainant towards the payment made to Taj Hotel for the Complainant’s stay as well as air-travel. [8] It is needless to say that the conditions incorporated in Carriage by Air Act, 1972; requires a passenger not to include in his checked in baggage, valuable articles and electronic goods, and therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to value of the electronic articles, as claimed by her. [9] In addition to above, we have noticed that while filing the complaint and producing the documents, the Complainant has effected lot of inter-pollutions and changes. Perhaps this was done to inflate her claim. For instance, at page (82) of the compilation of the complaint, there is cash memo issued by a garment shop. There is over-writing and addition of digit – ‘4’, preceding the figure – ‘1855’. At page (89) of the compilation, there is a cash memo issued by a leather stores in respect of a leather jacket. Article purchased was only one unit and the rate was Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, the total sum ought to have been Rs.4,000/-. However, gross amount is shown as – ‘Rs.14,000/-. Obviously, digit – ‘1’ was added preceding digit – ‘4’ to make it Rs.14,000/- from Rs.4,000/-. The Complainant claims that she had stayed at Hotel Trident from 25/4/2008 to 27/4/2008 and paid sum of Rs.14,288/- towards the hotel bill. The Complainant’s address as mentioned in this bill is – “Godrej Industrial Complex”. One fails to understand as to why she was required to stay at hotel during the period 25/4/2008 to 27/4/2008. If, she had came to contact the Opposite Party – Airlines; in search of baggage, she was not required to stay at the hotel. Similar are the instances in respect of stay at the hotel. Some of the bills show that she had stayed alongwith her guests. We fail to understand as to how the Opposite Party – Airlines; which is alleged to be guilty of negligence on account of loss of baggage could be liable for payment of bill of the Complainant towards her stay at the hotel for different dates in the month of April & May, 2008. It is needless to say that the Complainant must come before the Forum with clean hands. In the present case, we have noticed lot of over-writings and erassions in the bills, obviously with an object to inflate the claim of the Complainant. Moreover, as per conditions of carriage, the Complainant is not entitled to cost of those items, which she was not supposed to keep in the checked in luggage. In view of these facts and inflated/false documents produced on the record by the Complainant, we would have dismissed the complaint in toto, but we partly allow the claim in view of the letters referred to above by which the Opposite Party – Airlines; had offered a sum of Rs.70,764/- to the Complainant. Therefore, we propose to allow the claim of the Complainant to the extent of Rs.70,764/-. Rest of the claim of the Complainant deserves to be rejected. With this, we proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER The complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay to the Complainant, an amount of Rs.70,764/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is hereby made clear that in case of failure on the part of the Opposite Party to comply with the foregoing order within the stipulated period then, it shall be liable to pay to the Complainant, the amount of Rs.70,764/- together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a., as from the date of expiry of stipulated period of four weeks till realization of entire amount by the Complainant. Rest of the claims of the Complainant stands rejected. No order as to costs. Inform the parties accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | |
