IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

A & N ISLANDS AT PORT BLAIR

C.D Case No: 18 Of 2012

Shri Anna Durai                    ……………………………….Complainant.

-Vs-

1. The National Aviation Company of India Limited, Airlines House, New Delhi.

                                      2. The Station Manager, Indian Airlines Office, Port Blair.

                                                                                …………………………..Opposite Parties.

Date of Judgement: - on 26^th Day of March, 2014.

AWARD

The fact leading to this case may be briefly stated as follows:-

On 15/08/2011 the Complainant accompanied by his wife and infant son undertook journey by Air India Flight No: AI 550 from Port Blair to Chennai in order to attend the engagement ceremony of his cousin to be held in Madurai District, Tamil Nadu. He had 2 Nos. of slips for his baggage at Port Blair. But on arrival at Chennai at about 10.50 hrs he got back only one and found the other missing. On enquiry, he came to know that by mistake his said missing baggage was dropped into Kolkata bound flight at Port Blair and he was informed that he would get back his missing bag at about 8.30 p.m on that day. It is alleged by the Complainant that he and his family were not allowed to go outside the Airport. He had food items, medicines, napkins and cash worth Rs. 30,000/- etc. in his bag which was put in the Kolkata bound flight at Port Blair and as a result he could not buy food items for them. It is further alleged that the Airlines staff at Chennai did not provide any food to them nor made any arrangement for them to take rest.  Ultimately, at 20.50 hrs he got back his bag from the Air India staff. Due to this delay, he missed his train from Chennai to Madurai and on being unable to procure any confirmed Railway ticket he travelled to Madurai by bus from Koyambedu bus station and he had to spend Rs. 250/- as auto fair from his journey from Egmore Railway Station to Koyambedu bus station. According to him, due to the carelessness of the Airlines staff he along with his wife and son suffered mental and physical agony and harassment and was forced to remain without food and water till he got back his baggage. Thereafter he issued a legal notice through his Advocate on 12/11/2011 demanding compensation of Rs.1, 00,000/- from the O.P.s but barring a reply from O.P No.2 that they were investigating the incident, he got nothing from them. Now, he prayed for compensation of Rs. 1, 02,500/- from the O.P.s by filing this case.

Both the O.P.s contested this case by filing a Written Objection denying the material allegations of the Complainant. However, it is admitted by the O.P.s that the Complainant, his wife and son had travelled from Port Blair to Chennai by the Air India Flight No: AI 550 as stated by the Complainant and one of his baggage found missing for which one irregularity report is chalked out. According to the O.P.s, immediately on receipt of the Complaint, prompt action was taken by them and it could be traced out that the missing baggage was inadvertently tagged for Kolkata bound flight and the Complainant was requested to bear for few hours and they would inform him through his mobile number as soon as the luggage would be brought back from Kolkata by their own flight. Finally, the missing luggage was handed over to the Complainant on the same day and it was neither damaged nor was there any complaint regarding the same by the Complainant. It is the case of the O.P.s that utmost care and caution is taken to avoid any such error but the ground staffs only inadvertently kept the luggage into the trolley of Kolkata bound flight.

Now the points for consideration are as follows:-

1. Is the case maintainable?
2. Has the Complainant a reasonable grievance against the O.P.s?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get the award as prayed for?
4. To what other relief, if any, is the Complainant entitled?         

Decisions with findings:-

All the four points are taken up together for consideration.

In this case the Complainant Shri Anna Durai examined himself as PW (1). He also produced documents (Exhibit- 1to 8) which include air tickets, boarding pass issued by Air India, copy of the legal notice issued through his counsel. On the other hand, Shri Devjyoti Banerji examined himself as a defence witness on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant submitted during argument that, in this particular case the O.Ps had shown sheer negligence in not putting all the luggage of the Complainant in the Air India aircraft bound for Chennai from Port Blair. There was deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps which resulted in immense trouble and harassment to his client and that is why the O.Ps are liable to compensate the Complainant adequately.

Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps, however, submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the O.Ps nor there was any deficiency of service. According to them, what happened to this case, due to mistake one of the luggage of the Complainant had been put to the Kolkata bound flight at Port Blair and the said mistake was not at all intentional and deliberate.

Having heard the submissions of both the parties and having gone through the respective cases, the following admitted positions are found:-

1. That the Complainant accompanied by his wife and infant son had travelled by Air India Flight No- AI 550 on 15/08/2011 from Port Blair to Chennai.
2. On arrival at Chennai airport the Complainant got back only one piece of his baggage, while the other bag being inadvertently tagged in the trolley of Kolkata bound flight at Port Blair.
3. On the same day, however, Complainant got back his missing bag in the evening at Chennai airport.

Now, in their written objection and evidence, the O.Ps stated that on receipt of the complaint about missing bag, they immediately took prompt action and found that due to inadvertence the said luggage was put into the Kolkata bound flight at Port Blair and requested the Complainant to bear with them and assured him that he would get back his missing bag on the same day when it would be brought back to Chennai by their own flight.

It is further stated by the O.Ps that utmost care and caution is taken to avoid such type of inadvertent error which take place very rarely. It is found even the Complainant did not believe that putting his missing bag into Kolkata bound flight at Port Blair by the staff of the Air India instead of Chennai bound flight was done deliberately for causing harassment to him as he, as PW-1 during his cross-examination frankly admitted that because of a small mistake his luggage was boarded in Kolkata bound aircraft and possibly there was no deliberate delay on the part of the Air India.

We are also not going to believe that putting the missing luggage of the Complainant in the Kolkata bound flight was the intentional act on the part of the ground staff of the O.Ps. There is also no allegation made by the Complainant about any damage of the bag itself or any missing articles from there on getting back the same at Chennai airport.

But inspite of that, the fact remains, the Complainant could not proceed to his destination immediately on their arrival at Chennai airport and had to wait till evening when he finally got back his missing bag.

So far as his contention that he had missed the train from Chennai and ultimately, he had to spend Rs. 250/- as auto fare from Egmore Railway Station to Koyambedu and finally went to his destination by bus from Chennai, no document, say, bus ticket or railway ticket etc. has been produced by the Complainant.

As against his allegation about not being offered any food at the airport, the O.Ps claimed that the Complainant and his family were offered to have some eatables, even for the infant also and place for feeding the infant on humanitarian grounds by the staffs of the O.P No-1 at Chennai airport, but the Complainant stated to set managed himself from private commercial shops at the airport complex. In fact, it is not at all believable what the Complainant claimed that they including his infant son had to remain without food and water, till he got back his missing bag in the night as all the food items and cash were in his missing bag. It is natural and expected that a man of reasonable prudence would keep his valuables and particularly in this case the food items of his infant son, and cash that he was carrying, in his hand bag. Though, he claimed that due to his delay in arriving at his destination, he missed the engagement ceremony, but in support of this, nowhere in his complaint nor in his evidence he disclosed the date of such engagement.

Now, the documents filed on behalf of the O.Ps relating to the general terms and conditions applicable to Air India Flights which was duly certified by the officials of the O.Ps reveal that the carrier shall be liable to damages caused by delay in the carriage by air of passengers or baggage. At the same time, it has also been made clear that if the delay was caused despite all measures being taken by the servants and agents of the carrier to avoid such delay or that it was impossible for them to take such measures, the carrier shall not be made liable. Again, it is found that in case of loss, delay or damage to baggage the carrier’s liability is limited to INR 450 per kilo unless the higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid.

Here, we have already found that putting the Complainant’s luggage into the Kolkata bound flight by the Staff of the O.Ps by mistake was not intentional and deliberate. It is also true that the Complainant had to wait at Chennai Airport till the evening to get back his missing luggage. It is also clear that no damage was caused to his luggage. He did not specify about the weight of the luggage he was carrying.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant would justify the ends of justice.   

Accordingly it is,

Ordered

that the instant C.D Case be and the same is allowed on contest. The Complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand only) from the O.Ps.

The O.Ps are directed to pay the said amount of compensation to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which, the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 6 % per annum until payment is made.

Let copies of this order be given to both the parties free of cost.

                                    (Mr. Sudip Niyogi)          (Miss. Tasneem Abid)           (Mr. Abdul Waseem)

                                               President                              Member                                 Member