DOF.20.12.2010
DOO.30.03.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Dated this, the 30th day of March 2012
CC.No.298/2010
Suneesh Thachankandy,
Puthiyaparambath House,
P.O.Edakkad. Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.C.Deepak)
The Manager,
Air India,
Kozhikode Air Port,
Malappuram 673 647. Opposite party
(Rep. by Adv.E.Mohd.Shafi)
O R D E R
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to return back the luggage bearing Tag No.B.5765028 to the complaint or to pay `1, 00,000 as the value of the luggage and `50,000 as compensation with cost.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he has traveled from Muscat Seeb International Air port to Kozhikode International Air port through Air India Express flight No.X.534.The complainant was kept two luggage in the flight as tag NO.B.5765027, B.5765028 in which tag No.B.5765028 is a brief case, but the same was lost from opposite party which valued about one lakh rupees. On the same day itself the complaint lodged a complaint and opposite party replied that the lost luggage will be get to the complainant within one week after the complaint. On 9.4.10 the opposite party call for the complainant and handed over a property irregularity report and informed the complainant that they are searching for the luggage and will be get to the complainant within one week after the complaint. On 9.4.10 the opposite party calls for the complainant and handed over a property irregularity report and informed the complainant that they are searching for the luggage and will be getting same. Even though the complainant contacted the opposite party for several times there was no response on the part of opposite party. So the complainant issued a registered lawyer notice on 15.9.10. But the opposite party issued a reply stating untenable contentions instead of giving the luggage. The opposite party is responsible and liable for the lost of luggage due to the deficiency of service on their part. So they are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint.
In response to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed their version contending that the complainant is not a consumer and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since there is no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum and opposite party is working at Kozhikode. The averment that the brief case was lost at the time of traveling from the flight is not correct and hence denied. If such thing was happened in the flight it is very easy to find out the missing article within few minutes by searching inside the flight. The complaint has no case that he has given any complaint to the concerned authorities in the flight. So it is a story fabricated by the complainant by expecting the future living after return from abroad. It is not correct to say that the complainant has given complaint before the opposite party on the same day. The complainant is silent about the total weight of lost luggage and not explained the contents of the bag in the alleged complaint. It is express contract between the passenger and Air India that in case any excess weight or higher value is in any luggage, that would be declared by the traveler before the time when journey started and the liability is extended only to the extent that what was the weight lost. The opposite party is liable to the passenger as per the baggage value settlement of claim is a weight loss basis and not on value of items unless or otherwise a higher value is declared at the time of checking. The admitted contract between the complainant and the opposite party is that free baggage allowance in Air India Express from Muscot to Calicut is 30 kg. on enquiry opposite party came to know that the complainant had carried total 42 kg baggage from Muscot without paying excess baggage charges. Non–declaration of higher value is a vital suppression of actual fact. The value now declared by the complainant is fabricated one with a view to get unlawful gain. After getting the complaint opposite party enquired about the actual fact and revealed that the same was frivolous one. The opposite party denies the statements that the opposite party replied to the complainant that the lost luggage will beget within one week. The opposite party had never given any assurance to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of
opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as
prayed in the complaint?
4. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 DW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B5.
Issue No.1 to 3
The complainant’s case is that he had traveled from Muscat Seeb International Airport to Calicut in opposite party’s flight X 534 on 19.3.10 with luggage of 41 kgs in two baggages. Out of which one is a suit case and he had received only one bag with 30 kgs. and the other suit case was missing and even though he had complained to the opposite party about the same it was not recovered . In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and documents such as flight reservation charge, property irregularity report, lawyer notice, postal receipt, and postal acknowledgement and reply notice etc. were produced. In order to disprove the case opposite party’s manager was examined as DW1 and produced documents such as complaint given by the complainant to opposite party, authorization, property irregularity report in two in numbers and citizen’s charter.
According to the opposite party the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case since the opposite party is at Malappuram District but as per consumer protection Act, if the opposite party’s have a branch office within the jurisdiction of the Forum, the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case. Similarly the opposite party’s have a branch office at Kannur within the jurisdiction of the Forum and hence the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case and hence the issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
The further case of the complainant is that he had lost his suit case having 11 kg weight and it contains valuable items having a total value of `1, 00,000. But according to opposite party the free baggage allowable in Air India express from Muscat to Calicut is 30kg. Where as the complainant had carried a total 42 kg. baggage from Muscat without paying excess baggage charge and had not declared the higher value also. The complainant deposed before the Forum that “luggage Ib-äp-¶-Xn\p ap³t] km[-\-¯nsâ total weight airliness\ And-bn-¨n-cn-¡-W-sa-¶-dn-bn-Ã. cv luggagesâbpT IqSn weight 41 kg.bmWv. 41 kg Ib-äp-¶-k-a-b¯v excess weight charge sImSp-¯n-cp-¶p. B receipt \jvS-s¸-«p-t]m-bn-cp¶p. From the deposition it is seen that the complaint has not produced the receipt through which he has paid excess bagae allowance. He further deposed that “ 30 kg BWv permissible weight F¶-dn-bm-T.-In-«nb bagsâ weight 30 kg. bpsS-Xm-Wv.” So it is also clear that the complainant has received baggage having 30 kg. weight. So the non production of documents substantiates the case of the opposite party that the complaint has not paid excess baggage charge. So from the above discussion it is seen that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate his case by producing cogent and convincing evidence. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is failed to substantiate the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1. Copy of the flight reservation chart.
A2.Copy of the property irregularity report
A3.copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP
A4 & 5.Postal receipt and AD card
A6.Reply notice sent by OP
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1.Letter submitted by complainant dt. 27.5.10
B2.Authorisation letter
B3. Property irregularity report
B4. Copy of landing certificate (property irregularity report)
B5. Copy of the citizen’s charter of the Air India taken from internet
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite party
DW1.R.K.Nambiar /forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
