BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 76/2002

Dated : 30.10.2010

Complainant:

Saju C.A, S/o Antony, permanently residing at Chakkalakkal House, Melur Desom, Melur Village, Mukundapuram, Taluk, Thrissur represented by Power of Attorney Holder Sabu C.A, Chakkalakkal House, Melur Desom, Melur Village, Mukundapuram, Taluk, Thrissur

(By adv. S. Reghukumar)

Opposite parties :

1. Qatar Airways, P.O. Box 22550, Doha, Qatar, represented by its Managing Director.

    

2. Qatar Airways, Geethanjali Building, T.C No. 15/1897, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director.

    

3. The Baggage Tracing Officer, M.H.B Section, Qatar Airways, Trivandrum Airport, Trivandrum.

    

   (By adv. F. Eugine Fernandez)

4. The Airport Manager, Indian Airlines, Trivandrum Airport, Trivandrum.

This O.P having been taken as heard on 16.08.2010, the Forum on 30.10.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant travelled by Qatar Airways from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram with one baggage (diplomat suitcase) on 22.11.2000, that on arrival at Thiruvananthapuram airport on 23.11.2000 he found his baggage missing regarding which he had reported before 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties, and that the said baggage contained V.C.P, Satellite Receiver, a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- 32 gms of gold, a wrist watch, camera, mobile phone, perfumes, soaps, razor etc. It is further submitted by the complainant that a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- which was kept in the missing suitcase got encashed immediately after the incident, that complainant experienced great mental loss, financial agony and hardship. Complainant alleged willful negligence, misconduct and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant issued lawyer's notice to opposite parties stating all the facts. In response to the lawyer's notice a letter was sent to the complainant by the Customer Relations Officer of the 1^st opposite party stating that a thorough investigation is going on regarding the missing baggage. Complainant estimates the total value of missing articles at Rs. 96,000/-. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay Rs. 96,000/- towards the value of the articles lost together with interest, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service along with costs.

Opposite parties filed version contending that complainant travelled by QR 119/ QR 240 in the Sector Dubai/Doha/Trivandrum on 22^nd November 2000 and 23^rd November 2000, that complainant carried with one baggage, that the same was retrieved at boarding point under Limited Release Tag and that complainant did not submit the tag to the carrier. Opposite parties would not accept the responsibility for loss or damage due to specified conditions of acceptance, that the diplomat suitcase was not checked in the cargo section of the flight as alleged by the complainant, that complainant himself carried the said suitcase inside the flight as hand baggage, that as the aforesaid suitcase could not be accommodated in the box provided for the purpose inside the flight, the aforesaid suitcase was handed over to cargo section and a limited release tag was issued to the complainant, that on arrival at Thiruvananthapuram Airport the complainant reported that the said baggage was missing and the property irregularity report was issued to him wherein the complainant himself has specifically stated that one baggage weighing 14 kgs was lost, that in furtherance of this opposite parties made earnest efforts to trace out the baggage which were in vain. Hence opposite parties made repeated requests to complainant to give an itemised list of contents with its price along with ticket jacket and excess baggage receipt if any to which the complainant did not respond, that the articles described in the schedule are false and baseless. The averment in the complaint that the encashment of the cheque on the very next day of the arrival of the complainant leads to irresistible conclusion that the baggage had actually arrived at Thiruvananthapuram airport on 23.11.2000 itself and that the above said fact itself reveals that there is absolute negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties are absolutely false, baseless and hence vehemently denied. Opposite parties are not aware that the value of the missing articles is Rs. 96,000/- or any other sum or that the baggage contained the articles mentioned in the schedule annexed to the complaint. If at all the carrier is found to be liable, then the liability of the carrier is restricted to 280 US dollar and not the amount claimed by the complainant. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and value of lost articles?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly complainant was a passenger of Qatar Airways Flight from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram with one baggage and on arrival at Thiruvananthapuram airport on 23.11.2000 complainant found his baggage missing regarding which he reported before the opposite parties 3 & 4. It has been the case of the complainant that his suit case contained articles worth Rs. 96,000/- and the articles contained are VCP, Satellite Receiver, a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- 32 gms of gold, a wrist watch, camera, mobile phone, perfumes, soaps, razor etc. Ext. P1 is the copy of the Property Irregularity Report. Ext. P1 is not a readable copy. Ext. P2 is a copy of the document issued by the Airport Manager evidencing the missing baggage vide baggage tag No. QR 968224. Ext. P3 is the letter issued by Baggage Tracing Officer to the complainant dated 15.01.2001, thereby the complainant was requested to give an itemized list of contents with price value together with ticket jacket, excess baggage ticket coupon, copy of the passport and the completed Passenger Property Questionnaire at the earliest. Ext. P4 is the copy of the cheque dated 20.04.2000 for Rs. 10,000/- drawn on Federal Bank Limited in the name of Shajan. Ext. P5 is the letter dated 04.12.2000 from the complainant to the Manager, Federal Bank requesting him to stop payment to cheque No. 192255. Ext. P6 is the letter dated 21.03.2001 from Customer Relations-Qatar Airways to Sojan Anthony, advocate stating that investigations do take time. Ext. D1 is the copy of the Ext. P3. Ext. D1 and P3 are one and the same. Ext. D2 is the advocate notice issued by the complainant to opposite parties. Ext. D3 is the reply to Ext. D2 issued by opposite party. As per Ext. D3 the diplomat suitcase mentioned in the complaint was not checked in the cargo section of the flight and complainant himself carried the above said suitcase inside the flight as hand baggage and as the said suitcase could not be accommodated in the box provided for the purpose inside the flight, the aforesaid suitcase was handed over to the cargo section and a limited release tag was issued to the complainant. It is further stated in Ext. D3 that opposite parties made earnest efforts to trace the baggage which were in vain. Hence complainant was requested to give an itemized contents with its price along with ticket jacket and excess baggage receipt if any to which the complainant had not responded. Complainant never furnished any material to support the contents in the suitcase nor complainant furnished any bills showing the value of articles contained in it. Admittedly it is a suitcase. Complainant never declared the contents of the suitcase or baggage while entrusting the same with opposite party nor disclose the value nor paid any supplementary amount. According to opposite party their liability is limited to 280 US dollar if at all the carrier is found to be liable. The onus is on the part of the complainant to prove that the said baggage contained those items scheduled in the complaint. Neither the complainant nor the opposite party furnished any material showing the weight of the missing baggage. The fact remains that the opposite parties did not deliver the baggage to the complainant thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. No evidence adduced by the complainant to attract Sec. 25 of the Carriage by Air Act. When a baggage was entrusted to Airline authorities, it has to be returned in the same condition. Here the baggage is not returned, thereby the articles contained therein which were not disclosed at the time of handing over of the baggage to the opposite party was lost. In the version opposite party has mentioned that the complainant himself stated in the PIR that baggage weighing 14 kg was lost. Since Ext. P1 PIR is not a readable copy, we cannot ascertain the weight of the baggage from Ext. P1. In view of the above discussions and evidence available before us we are of the considered opinion that opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable to pay 280 US Dollar on account of missing baggage and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1& 2 shall jointly and severally pay the complainant 280 US Dollar (converted into rupees at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of this order) on account of loss of baggage and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs, within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the said amounts will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of October 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 76/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of the Property Irregularity Report.

P2 - Copy of the document issued by the Airport Manager.

P3 - Copy of the letter issued by Baggage Tracing Officer to the

complainant dated 15.01.2001

P4 - Copy of the cheque dated 20.04.2000 for Rs. 10,000/-drawn

on Federal Bank Ltd.

P5 - Copy of the letter dated 04.12.2000 from the complainant to

the Manager, Federal Bank.

P6 - Copy of the letter dated 21.03.2001 from Customer Relations-

Qatar Airways to Sojan Anthony, advocate.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of letter dated 15.01.2001.

D2 - Copy of advocate notice dated 03.03.2001.

D3 - Copy of the reply dated 06.10.2001.

PRESIDENT

jb