D.O.F. 21-01-2012
D.O.O. 17-01-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President
Smt.Sona Jayaraman.K: Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian: Member
Dated this, the day of January 2014
CC.No.369/12
Mr. K.T. Miraj
S/o. Late Ahammed Kutty Haji,
Business,
Ayisha Manzil, Complainant
Pattuvam, (PO),
Irikkur – 670 593,
Irikkur Amsom Desom,
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. P.P.Mubashirali)
The manager,
Air India Office,
Calicut International Airport, Opposite Party
Airport (PO),
Karipoor,
Malappuram District.
( Rep..by Adv.K. Vinod Raj)
O R D E R
Smt.Sona Jayaraman.K, Member
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to direct the opposite party. to pay an amount of ` 95,000/- (Ninety thousand only ) towards the value of goods in the lost bag and to pay an amount of ` 50,000 ( fifty thousand only) towards compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief is an follows: The complainant has travelled from Jeddah to Calicut as Umra Pilgrim by Air India Flight with luggage in trolley bag. But reaching at Calicut he did not receive his baggage which consists of items worth total amount of ` 95,000 Although elaborate search has been made the baggage was not found. Although he several times contacted the opposite party and enquired about the baggage it could not be traced out by opposite party. As the baggage was lost from the custody of opposite party there was mismanagement, negligence and deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
After receiving the complaint Forum sent notice to opposite party. Although Opposite party was declared exparte at the preliminary stage , later they appeared and set aside the exparte order and filed their version.
The case of opposite party is that although complainant made claim that a luggage carried by him went missing he could not produce any tag or counterfoil to prove his claim. They further contended that officials of Jeddah Airport have no knowledge of such baggage and no official had confirmed the missing of baggage and the complainant has not produced anything to prove the weight and value of articles carried in this baggage. The complainant is making a vague claim and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. A1 to A7 and Ext.B1.
Issues No.1 to 3
The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext. A6 and Ext. B1 document prove that the complainant has travelled from Jeddah to Calicut on 10-06-11. Ext.A2 document shows that complainant has filed complaint about the missing of baggage on 11-06-11 itself. Although opposite party contended that there is no luggage details in Ext. B1 document, it is not due to the fault of complainant. Ext. A6 document is the tag which shows that the complainant has travelled with baggage. So the contention of opposite party that no document is produced to prove that the complainant has been travelling with a baggage is devoid of merits. So it can be seen that the missing of baggage from the custody of opposite party is a gross negligence and deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
As the first issue has been answered in favour of the complainant it is to be deseeded what is the remedy to be done. In the Ext. A2 document complainant has declared the estimate value of goods as . ` 45,000 and the complainant has stated in his re-examination that ‘ estimate loss `45,000 A¯—¸ †Ò¸ ImWpw. No other document is produced to show the value of contents in the missing bag. No other evidence is also before this Forum to show the value of goods in the baggage. So the value of goods can be considered as `45,000. It can be seen that the complainant was an Umra pilgrim. Moreover it is an admitted fact that the complainant is not having any other luggage with him. So it can be presumed that the lost baggage contains valuables from the pilgrim as contended by complainant. In such a situation the loss of the baggage will cause severe mental agony and loss to the complainant. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of `15,000/- also towards compensation alongwith
` 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. This issues No. 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party . to give an amount of `45,000/- towards the value of item in lost baggage and to pay an amount of `15,000/- towards compensation along with litigation cost of `1,000/-. The opposite party shall comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order on the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainaanat
A1- Copy of passport
A2- Copy of property irregularity report
A3 - Copy of the lawyer notice 26-09-2011
A4 - Postal Receipt
A5 - Postal A.D Card
A6- Original of Boarding Pass dated 10-06-2011
A7- Original of Baggage identification Tag dated 10-06-2011
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1- Passenger manifest in respect of flight No. A 1962/10/Jun dated 10-06-2011
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1 - Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
// Forwarded by Order//
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
