STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

                                                            FA 228 of 2017

                                                   AGAINST

                 CC No. 42 of 2016, DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY

Between :

M/s. Air India,

Rajiv  Gandhi International Airport,

Shamshabad, Hyderabad, rep. by

Its Station Manager                            ..        Appellant/opposite party

And

B. Rajasekhar, S/o B. Thirumalaiah,

Aged 50 years, occ : Advocate,

R/o H.No. 17-236, Vidyanagar colony,

Nagarkurnool,

Mahboobnagar, T.S.509209      ..                  Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                  :         M/s. V. Uma Devi and Associates

Counsel for the Respondent               :         Sri G. Brahmeswara Rao.

Coram                :

                 Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla         …      President

                                           And

                          Sri Patil Vithal Rao              …      Member

                          Monday, the Twentieth Day of Novemer

                                  Two Thousand Seventeen

Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            ***

1)       This is an appeal  filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party praying this Commission  to set aside the  impugned order dated 18.04.2017  in CC 42 of 2016  on the file of the  DISTRICT FORUM, Ranga Reddy District and allow the appeal.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.

3).      The case of the complainant,   in brief, is that he booked an Air ticket for his son Mohinish Rahul to travel from Hyderabad to Dallas USA through AIR India fro Journey on 08.08.2015 vide Aircraft No. AI-051 with ticket bearing No.157949127741 and paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the cost of the ticket fare.  The passenger was allowed to travel with two pieces of baggage. He was scheduled to travel from Hyderabad to connecting  flight at Mumbai via Qatar Airways to Doha International Airport. From Doha, he was scheduled to travel vide Aircraft No.QR-733 from Doha to Dallas.  The passenger’s baggage was checked in at Hyderabad vide baggage Nos. AI-460076, AI-460077 and AI-460078. The opposite party charged Rs.5,280/- for the third baggage although the fare included 3 pieces  baggage. At Mumbai Airport, he found that one piece of baggage was missing and the same was brought to the notice of the opposite party but the passenger was assured that it would be at Dallas within three working days. But one baggage was missing . His son  had to incur expenses to the tune of $1,000/- in having to purchase clothes, shoes etc and he also had to pay fine of $200 for the missing campus accommodation receipt since they were packed in the missing baggage.  His son received only two suit cases out of three after 20 days, his son  was informed to collect the third one from the warehouse of the Dallas Airport’, where, his son was informed no such baggage was available with them and it was not  delivered till date. A legal notice dated 06.01.2016 was served on the opposite party, but, no reply was received from them.  Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.6,00,000/- towards the loss of articles in the baggage, Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony, to pay punitive damages for their callous attitude and costs of Rs.30,000/-.

4)       The  opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting that the son of the complainant purchased ticket through a travel agent to travel from Hyderabad to Mumbai on Air India flight    AI-051 on 08.08.2015 connecting to Qatar Airway flight QR-557 from Mumbai to Dallas via Doha on 09.08.2015 and checked three baggage  in question and the passenger travelled from Hyderabad to Mumbai by Air India flight and from Mumbai to Dallas via Doha on QAR-557 and QR -733, submitted that M/s. Qatar Airways is  not apart of Star Alliance Member and also not an internal Electronic Ticket partner with Air India. Hence the passenger was allowed only two pieces and hence the third piece was charged Rs.5,280/-.  Keeping in view paramount safety reasons, offloaded few pieces of baggage including the suit case of the son of the complainant from the aircraft. The complainant’s son did not declare the value of the goods in the baggage and as per the guidelines they are not liable for the loss/damage or delay in delivery. They sent the third piece of baggage to Dallas on US Airways  flight US -1233 on 10.08.2015. The complainant did not bring to their notice about the missing of the baggage till 06.01.2016. After receipt of the legal notice, they could not trace the missing baggage. As per the International Carriage Regulations, the complainant is entitled for compensation on weight loss basis, i.e., 20 kgs which amounts to Rs.30,160/- only. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5)       During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his  case, the complainant   filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-5 and the opposite party  filed evidence affidavit by reiterating the contents of the written version and also got marked Ex.B1. Both sides filed their respective written arguments.  Heard both sides.

6)       The District Forum, after considering the material available on record,  directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.30,160/- for missing baggage, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days, after which, it shall carry interest @ 9% pa.

7)       Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party    preferred this appeal before this Commission.

8)       Both sides have advanced their arguments,   reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments.   Heard both sides. 

9)       The points that arise for consideration are,

(i)       Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?

(ii)      To what relief ?

10).   Point No.1 :

There is no dispute that the deceased life assured obtained

respondent/complainant

12).              After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides,   this Commission is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13).    Point No. 2 :

In the result, the appeal is dismissed   confirming the impugned order dated 18.04.2017 in CC 42 of 2016 on the file of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy.  There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                            PRESIDENT                     MEMBER                                                                           Dated :  20.11.2017.