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. 77/2002

Dated : 30.10.2010

Complainant:

Sivadasan, S/o Ramankutty, permanently residing at Muzhuvangadan House, Kunnappilly Desom, Meloor Village, Thrissur represented by his Power of Attorney Holder, Rajan, residing at Madakkayil House, Kunnappilly Desom, Meloor Village, Thrissur

(By adv. S. Reghukumar)

Opposite parties :

1. The Managing Director, Qatar Airways, P.O. Box 22550, Doha, Qatar.

    

2. The Manager, Qatar Airways, Geethanjali Building, T.C No. 15/1897, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

    

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

    

(By adv. F. Eugine Fernandez)

 

4. The Airport Manager, Trivandrum Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

5. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Trivandrum Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. G.S. Prakash)

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 flight from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram on 22.11.2000 with one baggage (President company make suitcase), that on arrival at Thiruvananthapuram complainant found that his suitcase missing regarding which he has reported to 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties. In response to which complainant was asked to furnish the details of missing baggage and the same was recorded by opposite parties 3 & 4 as Property Irregularity Report dated 23.11.2000, that the missing baggage contained valuable articles belonging to the complainant such as 24 gm of gold, 10 Audio and Video CDs, 10 pants and shirt pieces, first aid sprays, cosmetics, audio cassettes, D.D for Rs. 5,000/- and cheque for Rs. 6,000/-. The total value of missing articles would come to Rs. 45,197/-, that complainant issued lawyer's notice to opposite parties stating all the facts. Opposite parties did not reply to the same, thereby complainant is forced to believe that the said baggage was irrecoverably lost. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay Rs. 45,197/- along with Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and costs.

Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version contending interalia that the complainant travelled by opposite party's flight with one hand baggage, that the said baggage was retrieved at the boarding point under limited release tag, that the complainant did not submit said tag to the carrier, that the said bag was accepted under limited release tag. 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 cargo section and a limited release tag was issued to the complainant, that complainant reported on his arrival that the said baggage was missing and PIR was issued to him wherein complainant himself has specifically stated that one baggage weighing 20 kg was lost, that opposite parties made earnest efforts to trace out the said baggage which was in vain. Hence opposite parties made repeated requests to complainant requesting him to give an itemized list of contents with its price along with ticket jacket and excess baggage receipt. But complainant did not respond. Opposite party denied the averment that the 'President' baggage contained the articles described in the schedule annexed to the complaint, that opposite parties have not committed any imprudent or negligent act arising out of mishandling or mal administration and hence no deficiency in service committed by opposite parties 1 to 3. It is further submitted that without prejudice to the contentions, if at all the carrier is found to be liable, the liability of the carrier is restricted to 400 US dollar and not the amount claimed in the complaint. Hence opposite parties 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 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. 45,197/- and the articles contained are 24 gm of gold, 10 Audio and Video CDs, 10 pants and shirt pieces, first aid sprays, cosmetics, audio cassettes, D.D for Rs. 5,000/- and cheque for Rs. 6,000/-. Ext. P1 is the copy of the Itinerary. Ext. P2 is the copy of the ticket issued by Qatar Airways. Ext. P3 is the copy of the receipt dated 23.11.2000 issued by 4^th opposite party. As per Ext. P3 No. of missing baggage is one and baggage tag No. is QR 968233. Ext. P4 is the copy of PIR. On perusal of Ext. P4 weight of missing baggage is 20 kg. Ext. P5 is the letter issued by the Baggage Tracing Officer, Qatar Airways to the complainant informing him to send documents such as passport copy, ticket jacket and excess baggage coupon if paid to reconsider his claim. Ext. P6 is the copy of the description of missing/damaged property. On perusal of Ext. P6 the description contains gold 24 gm, C.D, pant and shirt pieces, first aid spray, olive oil etc. etc. amounting to Rs. 45,197/-. 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 disclosed the value nor paid any supplementary amount. According to opposite party their liability is limited to 400 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 opposite parties did not deliver 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 20 kg was lost. 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 400 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 400 US dollar (converting into rupees at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of this order ) to the complainant. Opposite party shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs within two 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. 77/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of the Itinerary.

P2 - Copy of the ticket issued by Qatar Airways.

P3 - Copy of the receipt dated 23.11.2000 issued by 4^th opposite

party.

P4 - Copy of the Property Irregularity Report.

P5 - Copy of the letter issued by the Baggage Tracing Officer,

Qatar Airways to the complainant.

P6 - Copy of the description of missing/damaged property.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb