By: Smt.  Mini Mathew,   Member    
    Facts in brief:-
    The complainant boarded from Sharjah to Kozhikode Airport by flight No.IX 351 of the opposite party on 15/11/12.   A hand bag with some valuables was handed over to the officials along 

with his unaccompanied laggages at the time of boarding.   The authorities tagged the hand bag and the tag number was G 9776911.   The complainant kept two Nokia  Mobile phones, Seiko wrist watches and some medicines in the hand bag.   After the arrival at the Calicut Airport, the officials handed over all his laggages to the complainant except the hand bag.   The hand bag was found missing.   After conducting search, the official informed that the hand bag is lost and they issued a Property  Irregularity Report  to the complainant and directed him to contact after one week and they assured that the hand bag will be certainly handed over to him.  After one week, the complainant contacted the officials of  these opposite parties, but they have not responded properly and directed him to contact after two weeks.  After two weeks the complainant again contacted the opposite parties but the hand bag was not returned and there was no proper explanation for the same.   After that on 8/1/13 the complainant caused a registered  lawyer Notice to the opposite parties by demanding the lost baggage, on failure he will initiate  legal proceedings against them.   After receiving the notice the opposite parties did not even care to sent a reply to him.   Subsequently on 8/2/13 the complainant filed an application u/s 6(1) of Right to Information Act to the Air India Officials enquiring  what steps were initiated to recover his lost hand bag.   After that on 20/3/13 the 1st opposite party sent a reply to the complainant stating that the matter has once again refereed to the Airport Manager Sharjah for investigation.   Again on 9/4/13 the complainant again filed an application u/s 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 enquiring what is the reply from the Airport Manager, Sharhah.  But there was no reply from the opposite parties so far.  Hence, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   So the complainant approached this Forum for getting his grievances redressed.   So through this complaint he is claiming for refund of the  value of the lost baggage along with compensation.

    Opposite parties appeared before this Forum and filed their detailed version.   Through the version  the first contention  put forward by the opposite parties are that the lost hand bag of the complainant did not contain any valuables.   As per the complaint the missing bag contained two Nokia Mobile phones, Seiko Wrist watches and some medicines are not correct, and such contentions put forward by the complainant in the complaint is only for the purpose of extracting a fabulous amount from the opposite parties.

    Through the complaint, complainant submits that even after repeated demands the opposite parties did not taken any single steps to trace the lost articles of the complainant.   This also denied by the opposite parties.   According to the opposite parties they have taken all necessary steps for search and retrieval of the lost hand bag on the basis of the report filed by the complainant.   But all the attempts were in vain.

    Another contention raised on the side of the opposite parties are that, the complainant was carrying a hand bag that weighed 13 kgms.   The laggage having such weight is not permissible to kept within the cabin due to excess weight and odd size.  Hence, the lost hand bag was retrieved at the boarding gate by the ground handling staff of the opposite parties at Sharjah Airport under limited release (LR)  Tag No. G 9776911.   In the above said flight , there were 27 hand bags that were retrieved at the boarding gate under Limited Release Tags and all were loaded in the aircraft immediately.   More over, while issuing LR tags, the Ground handling staff had enquired whether any valuables, cash or passport were kept in the hand bags.   At that time the complainant had no such case.   Even then the opposite parties through their version admits that they are liable for a settlement of  US $ 20 per kg for the lost baggage or its equivalent amount in local currency.   In short through the version the opposite parties denied all the allegations put forward by the complainant in his complaint.   According to them there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice committed by them and hence they are not liable to pay any amount to the  complainant.
    The main questions that arise for consideration are as follows. 
    (i)  Whether the complainant has lost any baggage during the journey from Sharjah to Calicut International Airport?
If so, what is the remedy?
?
    (iii) Whether the opposite parties are deficient in their service?
    (iv) If so, relief and cost?   
    In order to substantiate the case of the complainant he produced and marked Ext. A1 to A5 which includes Properly Irregularity Report issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant.   Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and he was examined as Pw1.  Opposite parties appeared before this Forum and filed their detailed version.   After the completion of complainant's evidence the matter was posted for opposite parties counter affidavit.   Even though several chances were given to them they did not file their counter affidavit and hence their evidence was closed and the matter was posted for hearing.  Both sides were heard in detail.  No document was produced on the side of the opposite parties.

    Here both parties admits that complainant travelled from Sharjah to Kozhikode on 15/11/12 and during his journey his hand bag was found missing.  Complainant had taken all efforts to get back the missing baggage.   The matter was reported to the 1st opposite party and they issued a Property Irregularity Report and that was produced before this Forum and  marked as Ext. A5.   As per Ext. A5 the contents in the baggage including two Nokia mobile phones and Seiko wrist watches worth Rs.50000/-.  It was due to the sheer negligence of the opposite parties the baggage was lost.   Hence he is claiming to refund the value lost of baggage along with compensation.
    In the version the opposite parties admits that the complainant was carrying a hand bag that weighed 13 kgms and they are liable for a settlement of US $ 20 per one kg for the lost baggage or its equivalent amount in local currency.   The complainant has not declared the value of the lost baggage.   So the liability of the Air India limited up to 20 US dollar per one kg as per the prevailing norms applicable to such cases of missing baggage.  Complainant herein was examined as Pw1 and he has deposed that   “നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട ബാഗില്‍ ഈത്തപ്പഴം അടക്കം 13kg ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു" while cross examining the complainant the opposite parties himself admits that  “ എന്‍റെ നഷ്ട്ടപ്പെട്ട ബാഗില്‍ നോക്കിയയുടെ 2 ഫോണുകള്‍,  Seiko wrist വാച്ച്, കുറച്ചു പഴകിയ വസ്ത്രങ്ങളും ആണ് നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട ബാഗിലുണ്ടായിരുന്നത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ശരിയല്ല.  Immediately, after knowing about the missing of baggage the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party and they issued a Property Irregularity Report and that was filled by the complainant and which was marked as Ext. A5.   In Ext. A5, complainant clearly mentioned about the missing articles ie Two mobiles (Nokia), watches (Seiko).  This is the first document filled up by the complainant immediately after knowing about the missing of laggage.   How can we disbelieve him in such a situation. 

    Through in the version the opposite parties admits that the missing baggage was weighed 13 kgms, the complainant has not declared the value of the baggage.   So the liability of the Air India would be limited up to 20 US dollar per one kg.
    The act of the opposite parties are definitively came under the preview of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by negligently handling the baggage of a poor Pravasi Indian Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate complainant. 
    In the result we partly allow this complaint and direct.

(i)    The opposite parties shall pay 260 US dollar (13x20 = 260) or equivalent Indian Rupees towards the loss of baggage.

(ii)    The opposite parties shall pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant and

(iii)    The opposite parties shall pay Rs.20000/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant.   The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 
 
    Dated  this 30th   day  of  May,  2016
                                        
                                    A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
 

 R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER                                             

 MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
                                             
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant        :   PW1 
PW1        :  Complainant,  Mohammed Moulavi
Documents marked on the side of  the complainant        :   Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1          :   Lawyer notice 
Ext.A2           :   Application under Right to information Act,  dated 8/282013     
Ext A3       :   Application under Right to information Act,   dated 9/4/13
Ext A4           :   Reply of RTI act.                          
Ext A5        :  Property Irregularity Report.                                 
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party      :  Nil 
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party    :  Nil
                                  

                  
                                                    
                                    A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
 

 R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER                                             

 MINI MATHEW, MEMBER