In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.216/2011.
1) Ms. Sneha Khetawat,
9, Deshpran Sasmal Road, Kolkata-33. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) United Airlines,
Ground Floor, Block-2B, CLF Corporate Park,
DLF Quatab Enclave Complex, Phase-III, Gurgaon and
228A, AJC Bose Road, ‘LandmarkBuilding’, 1st Floor,
Kolkata-20, P.S. Ballygunge.
2) Air India Airlines, Airlines House,
113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-110001 and
Regional Office at Airlines House,
39, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-12 --------- Opposite Parties
3) INDIA BAGS SVCS, Room No.49,
Indira GandhiInternationalAirport, Terminal-II,
Near Prepaid Taxi Stand, New Delhi-100037.
4) Continental Airlines,
2nd Floor, Tower-C, Cyber-Greens
DLF-Phase-3, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana. --------- Proforma Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 20 Dated 22-10-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is student and has gone to USA for higher studies. The complainant in order to deal with the instant case on her behalf appointed her father Dr. Bimal Kumar Khetawat as her constituted lawful attorney.
O.p. nos.1, 2 and proforma o.p. no.4 are all concerned airlines carrying on business in various parts of the world in carrying passengers to various places. O.p. no.3 is the concerned department of o.p. no.2 who are concerned with the baggages of their passengers, their baggages loss and recovery etc.
Complainant travelled from Pittsburg, USA to Chennai, India to attend a marriage ceremony of a close family friend and also with the desire to spend time with her family in Kolkata on 1.7.10.
The detail of the manner of journey is given in detail hereunder:
a) Pittsburg to Chicago – Flight No.UA105 (United Airlines) – 1.7.10
b) Chicago to Frankfurt – Flight No.AI126 (Air India) – 1.7.10
c) Frankfurt to Delhi – Flight No.AI120 (Air India) – 2.7.10
d) Delhi to Chennai – Flight No.AI9439 (Air India) – 3.7.10.
Complainant had checked in two baggages at Pittsburg and the baggages were booked through to Delhi.
On arrival at DelhiAirport on 2.7.10 the complainant was shocked to note that her baggage had not arrived and after spending a considerable time in the airport the complainant lodged a complaint with o.p. no.2 vide no.DELA 130542 / 02JUL10 / 1753 GMT, distinctly stating by which carrier she had flown.
Complainant was assured by the officers of o.p. no.2 at DelhiAirport that as soon they are able to trace the baggage they shall inform the same to the complainant and the baggage shall be sent to Chennai immediately. It is pertinent to say that the baggage contained goods of considerable value like electronic items, jewelry, clothes and other personal belongings.
On 3.7.10 the complainant received a call from o.p. no.2 stating that one of the baggage namely Rucksack was traced and the same was handed over to the complainant on 4.7.10 at ChennaiAirport (office of o.p. no.2) in damaged condition. The other one was still not traceable.
Complainant sent several e-mails to one Mr. Enloe of Continental Airlines, proforma o.p. no.4 and queried about the fact that the complainant availed the United Airlines o.p. no.1 and the flight of Air India o.p. no.2 but how come the baggage was recovered from proforma o.p. no.4. But the complainant was left unanswered.
Complainant sent demand notice dt.28.8.10 through her ld. advocate asking the o.ps. to compensate Rs.5 lakhs for her mental agony, harassment and loss of some valuable goods.
O.p. no.1 replied on 7.10.10 denying all allegations stating that the complaint was lodged only with o.p. no.2 and not with them. O.p. no.1 also stated that as per International Convention and Air Carriage law, o.p. no.2 who is the final and delivering carrier, is responsible and liable for the safe delivery of luggage to the passenger. O.p. no.1 also stated that on 6.8.10 the lost bag was recovered and delivered at Pittsburg, USA by proforma o.p. no.4.
It may be stated that one of the baggage was recovered and delivered in damaged condition by o.p. no.2 at Chennai, India on 4.8.10 and other one was recovered and delivered by proforma o.p. no.4 at Pittsburg, USA on 6.8.10. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.1 and 2 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. O.p. nos.3 and 4 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against them.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that no cause of action took place in India / Kolkata at all. We rely upon CPR Vol-I 1992 page 4 for arriving at a decision and we are of the views that complainant is not entitled to any relief due to want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against o.p. nos.1 and 2 and dismissed ex parte without cost against o.p. nos.3 and 4.
Complainant is at liberty to agitate her case before the Appropriate Forum on the self same cause of action.
