Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/632/2019

Air India Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narendra Jangid s/o Santosh Kumar Jangid - Opp.Party(s)

Kartik Gupta

08 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 632/2019

 

Air India Ltd. through its Station Manager, Nehru Place Complex, Jaipur.

Vs.

Narendra Jangid s/o Santosh Jangid r/o B 36 Maharshi Dadhichi Marg,Kishore Nagar, Path No. 7, Murlipura, Sikar Road, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 8.8.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Vikas Soni counsel for the appellant

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 1^st dated 22.5.2019 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant. The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal is filed with delay of 10 days. Looking at the facts mentioned in the application the delay is condoned.

 

Facts are not in dispute that complainant respondent was travelling from Goa to Jaipur. Five checked in baggage were booked. One bag was found missing at Jaipur airport and immediately fact was acknowledged. The Forum below has allowed compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- as the contention of the complainant was that camera and clothes were in the missing baggage.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as documents submitted by the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant was that as per Carriage by Air Act his liability is limited to Rs.20,000/- only. The

 

3

 

counsel for the appellant has relied upon Carriage By Air Act,1972 wherein chapter II deals with documents of carriage. Sec. 3 reads as under:

 

“ 3. (1) For the carriage of passengers the carrier must deliver a passenger ticket which shall contain the following particulars:-

(a) the place and date of issue'

(b) the place of departure and of destination;

(c) the agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier may reserve the right to alter the stopping places in case of necessity and that if he exercises that right, the alteration shall not have the effect of depriving the carriage of its international character;

(d) the name and address of the carrier or carriers;

(e) a statement that the carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability contained in the schedule.

 

(2) The absence, irregularity or loss of the passenger ticket does not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of carriage which shall none the less be subject to these rules. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provision of his schedule which exclude or limit his liability.”

 

As per sec. 3.1 it is obligatory on the carriage to deliver

4

 

a passenger ticket as per 3 (1) (e) it is also mandatory that statement should contain on the ticket that carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability contained in the schedule. Here in the present case the specific finding of the Forum below was that the appellant has not submitted the printed ticket which could contains the particulars mentioned in sec. 3 (1) (e). Even during course of arguments the appellant has submitted the ticket of 4.1.2017 stands in the name of Manogyams Arora and ticket of 1.8.2019 stands in the name of Raunak Agarwal but inspite of specific finding of the Forum below ticket of the respondent Narendra Jangid has not been submitted which gives an adverse inference against the appellant that ticket which has been issued to the respondent do not contain the particulars mentioned in sec. 3 (1) (e) and when condition has not been stated on the ticket the liability provisions cannot be availed by the appellant.

 

For luggage ticket the Carriage By Air Act,1972 sec. 4 reads as under:

 

“ 4 (1) For the carriage of luggage other small personal objects of which the passenger take charge himself, the carrier must deliver a luggage ticket.

5

 

(2) The luggage ticket shall be made out in duplicate, one part for the passenger and the other part for the carrier.

(3) The luggage ticket shall contain the following particulars:-

(a) the place and date of issue;

(b) the place of departure and of destination;

(c) the name and address of the carrier of carriers; (d) the number of passenger ticket;

(e) a statement that delivery of the luggage will be made to the bearer of the luggage ticket;

(f) the number and weight of the packages;

(g) the amount of the value declared in accordance with rule 22 (2);

(h) a statement that the carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability contained in this schedule.

 

(4) The absence, irregularity or loss of the luggage ticket does not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of carriage, which shall none the less be subject to those rules. Nevertheless if the carrier accepts luggage without a luggage ticket having been delivered or if the luggage ticket does not contain the particulars set out at (d), (f) and (h) of sub-rule (3), the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of the schedule which exclude or limit his liability.”

 

The provision referred above specifically mentioned

6

that if luggage ticket does not contain the statement relating to limited liability the carrier shall not be entitled to avail these provisions. Hence, in view of the above this defence was not available to the appellant.

 

Same condition has been mentioned in case of checked baggage in second schedule. As per sec. 17 the carrier is liable for the damage and loss during the period checked baggage in their custody. The appellant has relied upon sec. 22 (2) and their contention is that checked baggage has to be handed over with a special declaration and in the present case no such declaration is being made.

 

Sec. 22 (2) of the Carriage By Air Act,1972 reads as under:

“ In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay shall be limited to one thousand Special Drawing Rights for each passenger unless the passenger has made at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if so required. In that case, the carrier shall be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger's actual interest in delivery at destination.”

7

A bare reading of above goes to show that special declaration is needed only when carrier required so. Here in the present case there is no evidence to the effect that any such declaration was asked from the respondent.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that the passenger should not put fragile or valuable articles in the checked baggage. It is advisory only the appellant cannot avoid their liability and further more as considered earlier no such advisory was issued to the complainant respondent.

 

The appellant has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2554/2008 The Head of ground staff Sahara Airlines Vs. Jayant Rath where liability was in relation to 450 kg. only which is not the case here.

 

In view of the above ,the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim. There is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

nm