KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.363/03 JUDGMENT DATED.10.3.2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER Srilankan Airlines Ltd., Rep. by the Station Officer. Room No.160, -- APPELLANT International Terminal, Airport, Trivandrum-695 008. (By Adv.F.Eugine Fernandez) Vs. Vijayan Rajeev, -- RESPONDENT Ushus Vihar, Kallumthazham.P.O. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.178/01 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram ie; Sri Lankan Air Lines who are under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- with 14% interest till the date of realization and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/-as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had travelled on 7.1.2001 in flight No.532 of the opposite parties from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram. At the time of boarding the hand baggage that the complainant was carrying was objected to and was taken to the check in baggage. On arrival at Trivandrum Air Port the above bag was found missing. The complainant immediately intimated the matter to the opposite parties. Subsequently, lawyer notice was sent. The complainant was present on 28.2.01 to take delivery of the above baggage which was reportedly located but the bag was in a weightless condition and without safety packing. Although there was number lock facility the complainant had locked the bag with ball lock. It was found that the ball lock has been removed and the bag has been locked with the default number provided by the manufacturer. As the bag has found to be reduced in size the same was weighed and the weight was found to be 7.5 kg. He then demanded open delivery which was denied. It is alleged that the valuables in the bag were found pilfered by the officers of the opposite party. The complainant has mentioned the value of the items included in the bag as amounting to Rs.105140/- that included digital camera, gold chains etc. The response of the opposite parties in denying open delivery and in causing the loss of the articles amounted to carelessness and deficiency in service. 3. Opposite party/appellant has filed version alleging that the items contained in the baggage were not informed to the opposite parties. It is contended that as per article 9 of the General Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage, jewellery and other valuables are not to be put in the checked baggage and that the passenger has got the option to declare the value of the valuables in the checked baggage in excess of 250 French Gold Franes ie. equivalent to 20 US Dollars, he will have to pay the applicable charges. It is stressed that the baggage has been returned properly without any damage or loss. It is denied that the officers of the opposite parties have plundered the valuables. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of both sides and Ext.P1 to P6 and Ext.D1. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the appellant has stressed Rule 22 of the Carriage by Air Act 1972, as per which the liability of Carrier is limited to a sum of 20 US Dollars per kg. unless the passenger had made a special declaration and has paid the supplementary charges required. 4. We find that the complainant in the proof affidavit filed has detailed his case that at the time of boarding the flight the hand bag was objected to and despite informing that the same contained valuables the officials made to hand over the same to the check in baggage section and for the excess of 8 kg the complainant was make to pay additional charges. He has also re-iterated that the weight of the bags was found to be only 7.5 kg at the time when the bag was traced out and offered to the complainant. It is admitted that the hand baggage that can be arrived can weigh only be up to 10 kg and that for 8 kgs excess additional charge was paid. Hence the total weight of hand baggage would be 18 kgs. It is also mentioned in the affidavit the details of the articles lost and also as to the attitude of the opposite parties in denying him open delivery. PW1 was not cross examined. It is also seen that in Ext.P1 reply notice dated. 8.2.01 sent as reply to Ext.P6 notice of the complainant dated.27.1.2001 the opposite parties have not mentioned anything about the loss of weight of the baggage etc. It is pertinent to note that the details of the articles contained in the bag are mentioned in Ext.P6 notice. There is no mention about the same in the reply notice. Subsequently, the complainant has sent another notice ie. in Ext.P4 notice dated.1.3.01 re-iterating his allegations. Ext.P5 dated.5.3.01 is the reply letter to Ext.P4 wherein none of the allegations of the complainant has been considered. Ext. P5 just contains a casual mention that the letter has been forwarded to the customer care and service monitoring section in Colombo. Thereafter there is no communication to the complainant. Then the complaint has been filed on 18.4.01. There is no explanation for not making any comments about the allegations of the complainant in any of the reply notices sent by the opposite parties. It is to be noted that the complainant had alleged plundering of the valuables, tampering of the bag and denial of the open delivery. We find that there is absolutely no reason to deny open delivery to the complainant. The attitude of denial to open delivery is beyond explanation. In the circumstances, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We find that Rule 22 of the Carriage by Air Act would not be attracted in the above fat situation. Hence, we find that there is no reason to disturb the order of the Forum. The same is confirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER s/L | 
