JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is a bona fide passenger of Air India for valid ticket being No.0098466763 of return journey to EWR U.S.A from Kolkata – India and back and the details of journey scheduled of complainant is as followed. 

AI 773 on 03.05.2013 fro Kolkata to Bombay, AI 191 on 04.05.2013 from Bombay to EWR, AI 144 on 12.05.2013 from EWR to Bombay and AI 177 on 13.05.2013 from Bombay to Kolkata which returned from EWR to Bombay on 12.05.2013 by Flight No.144 on 12.05.2013 which came to Bombay on 13.05.2013 complainant made immigration formalities came to Custom Area to collect his baggage of two pieces.  But he was surprised to note while waiting in proper conveyer belt could not find two pieces of luggage for custom formalities and took back and on enquiry with the Air India people (Baggage) he was informed since his baggage Tag marked CCU Kolkata, it will directly reach to Kolkata.  So, complainant could collect his luggage from Kolkata itself.

          Thereafter complainant left the International Airport and proceeded to take Flight AI 776 which was a domestic flight to reach Kolkata and which was about 4:00 hours late and said craft landed about 2:00 A.M. At about 10:00 A.M. on 14.05.2013 complainant went to collect his luggage but it was said by Air India baggage section that it has not come unfortunately but it may be expected today evening or next morning on 15.05.2013.  So, on 15.05.2013 he went to Kolkata Airport to collect his luggage but it was said by Air India baggage section that it will be reached to Kolkata and he may collect his luggage on 16.05.2013 morning.  Complainant was very much annoyed and asked them to compensate.  But subsequently complainant got a phone call for the first time from Air India on same day i.e. 15.05.2013 at about 8:00 P.M. that his luggage has come from Delhi Airport to Kolkata and was sent it by their Courier (Ms. Doloi & Sons, Kolkata-700081) at about 9:30 P.M..

          Thereafter on receipt of two pieces of luggage he found one handle of his baggage was broken and it was tied by rope and in another baggage he found one of the wheel was missing and the shape of the both suitcases were unshaped and that time he could not open the said suitcase by his key since it was deformed due to mishandling and that was noted down to the delivery slip of the Courrier.

On the next day complainant opened the suitcase with the help of a suitcase mechanic and found most of all glass materials containing perfume were broken and video camera was broken in two pieces along with shampoo and other materials and most surprising fact that complainant noticed that him two pieces of luggage were sent by the Courier who came by travelling by train and by bus dragging the suitcase all along the road and it is a shame less act on the part of Air India to send his valuable luggages not by any private car or taxi.

Thereafter complainant preferred to write a letter stating all the facts to the Regional Manager Air India at C.R. Avenue, Kolkata but till today there is no response received from the op in writing but by a call from Airport Mr. Sharma extended his apology over the telephone but did not give any proper relief and in the above circumstances complainant prayed for compensation.

On the other hand by filing written statement op submitted that if the baggage of the complainant was not found at Bombay, property Irregularity Report would have been issued at Mumbai which reveals that the complainant did not clear his baggage Mumbai and straightaway left for Domestic terminal to catch the Kolkata Flight.  In case the complainant did not get the baggage at Mumbai for customs clearance, PIR should have been issued at Mumbai.  But fact remains that complainant contacted the ops on arrival at Kolkata when the complainant did not receive his baggage.  If the complainant had reported the matter at Mumbai Airport, the PIR would have been issued there.  But the PIR was issued at Kolkata Airport as the baggage did not arrive at Kolkata by the Flight AI 776 on 15.05.2013 in which complainant arrived and accordingly message was sent to Mumbai to locate the baggage and forwarded the same to Kolkata by First Available Service.  It is further submitted that telephone number of baggage cell was written on the PIR and all passengers are being told that Air India shall contact them as soon as the mishandled baggage arrives as Air India has the provision of home delivery and they are also requested to contact and confirm about the baggage status over telephone if they at all want to collect the baggage from Airport.  Further as per Air India record, the complainant had requested for home delivery of the baggage and therefore there was no reason of his coming to the Airport to collect the baggage time and again.

Further the complainant in his letter dated 17.05.2013 had stated that all material inside the baggage was intact but all chocolates, shampoos were melted and damaged all his clothes and the complainant never mentioned anything about the video camera and the ops do not admit anything about content of articles in the baggage.  It is further submitted that the subject baggage were delivered to the complainant’s residence by M/s. Doloi & Sons by their own vehicle on 15.05.2013 and on receipt of the complainant’s letter dated 17.05.2013, complainant was again contacted by Mr. S.S. Sharma, In Charge baggage cell, Kolkata Airport and told the complainant that same will be repaired and requested to inform his convenient date and time so that someone of the agent of Ms. Doloi & Sons can visit his place to collect the damaged baggage from his residence.  But the complainant did not confirm the same to the baggage cell and never contacted the office anymore and as per contract of carriage, returning Indian residents from abroad are not entitled for any Interim relief for delay in baggage delivery.

Further the carrier is liable for damage of any fragile or perishable items carried in the registered baggage and since the baggage was under customs bond and they had to be re-routed to Kolkata by some International Flight only as there is no direct International Flight operating directly from Mumbai to Kolkata, so baggage were re-routed via Delhi as there are International flights operate between Mumbai to Delhi and Delhi to Kolkata.

It is pertinent to mention that the op did not declare the value of the goods and did not disclose the articles contained in his baggage at the time of check-in at Newark (EWR) and it is therefore denied that the list of goods and articles which was stated by the complainant is genuine.  It is further alleged that the complainant did not contact the appropriate authority for Custom clearance at Mumbai (BOM) and as per rules, all international passengers are required to clear their baggage from Customs at the first Port of Entry, i.e. Mumbai in the instant case and if the baggage was not found at BOM, value of the goods should have been declared and PIR issued at Mumbai.  Without prejudice to the aforesaid but fully relying thereupon, the ops beg to deal with the statements made in the said complaint stating that the allegations are false and fabricated and unexpected what had been admitted by the op.

Most surprising factor is that at the time of leaving Mumbai, complainant did not make any complainant to the Airport authority about his luggage.  In case the complainant did not get luggage in Mumbai for customs clearance PIR should have been issued at Mumbai.

In the above circumstances, the present complaint should be dismissed and when there was no fault or deficiency on the part of the ops.

                                      Decision with reasons

On careful study of the entire record including the complaint and written statement and particularly the complaint initially filed and submitted by the complainant to Regional Manager of Air India, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata, it is found that by that letter dated 17.05.2013 complainant specifically mentioned when underline of the damages was caused in respect of two luggage and the said lines are ventilated in same words “ not only of one handle of my baggage was missing, one of the wheel of my suitcase was broken and other was torn.  The material inside of the baggage was intact but all chocolates and shampoos were melted and damaged all my clothes”.

Complainant has relied upon that letter which has been annexed to the complaint.  Op has relied upon that letter,  then it is admitted position that the handle of his baggage is missing and one of wheel of his suitcase is broken and other were torn and material inside of the baggage was intact that means inside the baggage there was no torn or brakage etc.  But complainant in the present complaint has ventilated that his camera was broken. That means complainant has submitted the damage of camera before Forum for getting more amount.  About melting of chocolates and shampoos as pested with the dress was not the act of the courier but it is one type of act of the complainant because complainant is aware of the fact when the luggage is being carried such sort of articles must not be kept in suitcase.  So apparently falsity of the complaint is proved.

From the written statement, it is found that complainant was reported by the Air India to report whether he is willing to repair the same and in that case Air India shall have to send their man through their courier, but complainant did not accept it.  Another factor is that for non receipt of the said luggage at Kolkata was for the fault of the complainant because complainant availed of journey from EWR to Kolkata.  So, it was international flight and as per provision of Air India rules if anyone availed of any international flight journey from foreign country to come to India in that case his luggage shall be checked by the Custom Department and fact remains in the said luggage there was a tag CCU Kolkata that was not denied by the complainant. So after arrival of that flight Air India 144 on 02.05.2013 EWR to Mumbai, complainant must have to avail of next flight of AI 177 from Mumbai to Kolkata.  But complainant did not avail of it and he left Mumbai by another flight AI-776.  But it was domestic flight.  It is fact that complainant was aware of the fact that his luggage was tagged with such token mark CCU Kolkata and if actually complainant did not receive his luggage for customs clearance at Mumbai in that case it was his duty to collect such slip that is PIR should be received from Mumbai Airport.

But complainant did not receive it and another fact is that for not receiving PIR at Mumbai Airport, complainant cannot avoid the connected flight AI-177 on 13.05.2013 from Mumbai to Kolkata, but he availed of domestic flight from Mumbai to Kolkata as flight No. AI-177.  So, there was no liability on the part of the Air India to handover the baggage because the baggage was booked from EWR to Mumbai and Mumbai to Kolkata.  So, it was the duty of the complainant to collect the baggage after necessary customs inspection and as because complainant left the Mumbai Airport without receiving any PIR so there was fault on the part of the complainant and complainant’s luggage must not be released without customs clearance and as because complainant was not available and the baggage was opened by the Custom Department after removal the luggage at Kolkata and that was checked and thereafter it was again tied up with belt by op and that was dispatched to the house of the complainant and truth is that Air India requested the complainant to report whether he wants to receive it at Airport or at his destination and as because he opted delivery of the same at his address Air India sent by their courier and complainant admittedly received it.  So there was no laches on the part of Air India in this regard.

Fact remains damaged was very simple i.e. breakage of handle and breakage of one wheel and the present op asked the complainant whether he is willing to repair it and in that case Air India offered for repairing it by their person through courier but complainant did not accept it and filed this complaint adding some false claim that is damage etc of camera.  Now the question is what manner such sort of unscrupulous consumers shall be dealt with and in this case this dishonest claim of the complainant is well proved and most interesting factor is that op again and again reported the complainant to inform whether he wants the service of Air India Authority for repairing the same complainant did not respond.  In the above situation we have gathered that there was no fault, deficiency, negligence on the part of the op where sample wear and tear may be caused during transit.

Moreover wear and tear may be caused for such journey EWR to Mumbai in respect of luggage and Air Port Authority always helped the customers for repairing the same through their agent at the residence of the customer and in this case that was offered by the op and but complainant did not receive it because due to several advertisements regarding relief granted by Forum many customers have become very greedy to get more money against petty loss and in this case op offered the complainant to give all services but complainant did not accept it and it is no doubt the greedy customers’ expectation and such type of consumer must be dealt with properly because in the complaint the vexatious claim was included that his commodity was broken into pieces and it is false in view of the fact that his own letter of complaint submitted to the op on 17.05.2013 reveals that the materials inside the baggage was in tact that means any breakage of commodity was not caused, but it is subsequent inclusion in the complaint to get Rs.10,000/-.

Fact remains considering the complaint of the complainant before the Airport Authority dated 17.05.2013 we are convinced that entire complaint is false and fabricated and when op offered such offer for repairing such minor defects of his baggage when complainant did not accept it is no doubt one type of unfair practice on the part of the consumer.

In view of the above findings we are convinced to hold that the entire complaint is vexatious, false and fabricated and complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency and negligence on the part of the op by any means.  On the contrary greedy mind of the complainant (consumer) is proved well.

Accordingly, complaint fails.

Hence, it is

                                                         ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the op and complainant shall have to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- as penal cost which shall be deposited to this Forum and it is imposed only for filing such vexatious and false complaint.

Complainant may get his baggage repaired by the op when op is willing to repair it and if complainant does not get the luggage repaired with the help of op, in that case op has no responsibility to do that in future.