KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL 424/2003
JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2011
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
APPELLANTS
1. K.K. Zacharia,
S/o Kurian, Anjipparambil House,
Annaz, Kaippattoor P.O,
Via, Arakkunnam, Ernakulam-13.
2. Annie Zacharia,
W/o Zacharia, Anjipparambil House,
Annaz, Kaippattoor P.O,
Via, Arakkunnam, Ernakulam - 13
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.M. Ziraj)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. The Station Manager,
Royal Jordanian,
Second floor, Terminal-2A,
Chathrapathi Shivaji Internatiponal Airport,
Mumbai – 400 099.
2. The Manager,
Royal Jordanian, G.S.A., Jet Air Bag Chambers,
Atlandis Junction, M.G. Road, Kochi – 15
3. The Managing Director,
Omania Tours and Travels(P) Ltd.,
Land Mark Enclave,
Velanjambalam, Kochi – 16.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. A. Abdul Karim)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the complainant/husband and wife in O.P. 962/00 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint filed by the appellants stands dismissed.
It is the case of the complainants that they had joined a tour package organized by the 3rd opposite party/Travels for visiting holy places in the Middle East including Jarusalem, Jordan, Egypt etc as per the traveling schedule and the complainants boarded Royal Jordhan Flight of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties from Amman to Cairo. On arriving at Cairo Airport, it was found that their baggage has been lost. The baggage contained gold ornaments, dresses, essential medicines etc. worth more than Rs. 1.25 lakhs. The same contained many valuable gift articles also. The loss was immediately reported at the nearest police out post since the ground handling agency M/s. Egypt Air was found closed. The complainants had to buy the dress materials and other articles afresh. Alleging deficiency in service they have claimed a sum of RS. 1,25,000/-altoghether as compensation.
In the opposite parties 1 and 2 the Royal Jordanian Airlines has contested the matter. It is contented that the complainants did not lodge any PIR(Property Irregularity Report) with M/s. Egypt Airlines, the ground handling agency of the first opposite party in Cairo. M/s. Egypt Air Foundations are operating through out the day in the airport. The complainants have not produced any record as to the complaint alleged by filed before the police. In the absence of the PIR the opposite parties had difficulties to arrange for tracing of the missing baggage. The baggage tab was also not handed over. The detail of the baggage checked in or the weight of the missing baggage was not disclosed to the opposite parties. They have not made any declaration as to the contents of the baggage vide the provisions in the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The contention that the baggage contained articles worth more than Rs. 1.25 lakhs is disputed. The offer to pay 400 U.S. dollars was only a gusture of goodwill. The opposite parties in reply to the lawyer notice have offered to pay a sum of Rs. 17,446/- equal lent to 400 U.S. dollars.
The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Pw1 and Exts. A1 to A7.
We find that the forum has dismissed the complaint as the complainant had not lodged any PIR and further as they have not produced any bills to show the details of the items contained in the baggage.
At the outset it has to be pointed out that it is rather curious as to why even the offer of the opposite parties to pay 400 U.S. dollars was not allowed by the Forum. We find that the case of the complainant as narrated in the complaint and supported by the evidence of Pw1, the first complainant as to the lost baggage when they landed at Cairo airport stands not discredited as such. The plight of the complainant with the baggage lost in a foreign airport can be imaginated. The case of the complainants that the office of the ground handling agency M/s. Egypt Air was found closed and there was no body to help the complaints for quite a long time. Also stands not discredited in the cross examination of Pw1. It is their case that the police authorities in the nearest station and was not able to understand English and with the help of another person the complainants somehow registered the complaint. The police authorities shouted at them when they asked for acknowledgment and then they left the place. We find that there is nothing to dis believe the above statements of the complainants. It is their case that the baggage contained dresses of both the complainants and life saving medicines as the first complainant suffered from diabatis, blood pressure and heart ailments. It is also stated that the bag contained gift articles purchased from various places. It is only likely with the complainants would have purchased souvenirs for presenting to friends and relatives. It is only likely that there would be no bills of dresses etc. It is more likely that the bills of other items were kept in the bag itself. The offer to pay Rs. 400/- U.S. Dolars is on the basis of the condition printed overleaf of the ticket itself. Evidently the complainants had to undergo a lot of sufferings and tension at the Airport and had to purchase the materials afresh. It is the duty of the Airlines to see that the baggage of the passengers are not lost. Further it was a check in baggage that was missing. Of course the complainants were bound to declare the valuable items. But the same is no justification for the lack of care with respect to the baggages of the passengers is concerned. . There is no evidence on the part of the opposite parties as to what were the measures taken to prevent the loss of baggage etc. It is usual that the baggages unloaded are circulated in conveyor belts and anybody in the airport can place hands on the same. It is for the airlines concern to device some method to see that the baggages are not lost. There is no further checking of the packages in case somebody else in the airport takes the baggage outside the airport. The plight of a domestic passenger is different from that of an international passenger who is placed in a strange land having a different language. The mannerisms and behaviour of the Airport personnel differs from place to place. The attitude on the part of the airlines in not taking steps to prevent the lifting of baggage has to be treated as willful negligence. Of course the offer to 400 U.S. dollars has to be appreciated. The above amounts to Rs. 17,446/- is not disputed.
In the instant case we find that the above is not sufficient as evident from the testimony of Pw1. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint, the amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 12.4.2011 , the date of this order.
In the result, the order of the Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed as above.
The office will forward the L.C.R. to the Forum along with a copy of this order.
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
