Date of filing: 13-10-2016 Date of order : 30-6-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Friday, 30th day of June 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 74 / 2016
S. Iqbal Mahammad Khasim, Rep. by it’s wife
S. Rasheeda, Power of Attorney Holder,
D.No. 18/338, D.C. road, Opp. Newmarket,
Kadapa city. ………… Complainant.
Vs.
The Costumer Affairs Executed,
Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd., Vijaya towers, No. 4,
Kodambakkam High Road, Mungabakkam,
Chennai – 600 034, Tamil Nadu State. ….. Opposite party.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 23-6-2017 in the presence of Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate for Complainant and Sri S.S.D. Ramaswamy, Advocate for Opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- for costs of the baggage or return the articles as per PIR report, to pay Rs. 40,000/- towards expenses as car fares by the Complainant, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and such other reliefs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows. The Complainant is the resident of Kadapa staying at Kuwait since 15 years for his livelihood. Whenever he used to visit to Kadapa, he purchased ticket in Sri Lankan Airlines Kuwait for down and for going to Kuwait. He purchased air ticket at Kadapa. On 29-6-2016 he came down with ticket No. 6031795881621 and at the time of boarding he paid charges to his luggage as per rules of the Air Act. He can kept 7 kgs. Of baggage inside aeroplane and hand bag weighing about 10kgs. Unless charges are paid they are not allowed to take back the luggage at air port, Chennai. After reaching the said plane international air port at Chennai one bag was misplaced and to that effect property irregularity report was issued. The said bag was having articles of 2 samsung mobiles J7, J1 and Nokia phone, cloths, sony phone and chocolates food items, charger, pens and telephone covers vide tag No. UL397331. Even after 2 months the authorities did not deliver the said bag to the Complainant. Thus the Complainant suffered a lot for mental agony due to loss of baggage. Thus, there is negligence on the part of the Opposite party.
3. On 22-8-2016 the Complainant got issued legal notice to the Opposite party and the Opposite party issued reply stating that the investigation was initiated and the report is awaiting. On 19-8-2016 the Complainant received a letter from O.P. stating that they have not able to trace the baggage and they require documents such as PIR report coy of passport, copy of ticket. Accordingly Complainant send the documents. But on 7-9-2016 O.P. send final letter stating that the tag produced by Complainant belonged to some other passenger by name Mr. Govindan, who was travelling in the same flight. The said reasons are given only to avoid giving baggage and escaping from his liability. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
4. Opposite party filed written version admitting the Complainant purchased air ticket for travelling by UL 230 on 29-6-2016 from Kuwait to Colombo and from Colombo to Chennai by UL 127 on 30-6-2016, but denied other allegations and called upon the Complainant to prove all of them. Opposite party does not have any domicile of the carrier at Kadapa within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble forum and the Opposite party also does not have its principal place of business at Kadapa within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble forum where the complaint is filed. Therefore, this forum has no jurisdiction as per carriage by Air Act 1972 amended act 2009. On a complaint lodged by Complainant on arrival at Chennai one bag was found missing and the claim was rejected by Opposite party as the baggage tag number given in PIR report belong to passenger by name E. Govindan, who was traveling by flight UL 230 on 29-6-2016 from Kuwait to Colombo and from Colombo to Chennai by UL 127 on 30-6-2016 and the same was communicated to the Complainant by letter dt. 7-9-2016. It is further contended that the Complainant ought not have checked in 2 Samsung mobile J7 & J1, Nokia pone, sony phone, etc., in his hand baggage which was retrieved since they are prohibited items, as per clause 4.8.3 of Sri Lankan Condition of carriage for passengers and baggage. Thus there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party and Opposite party is not liable to pay amounts as claimed by the Complainant and Complainant is not entitled for the above claims and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P as pleaded by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claims from Opposite party as prayed for?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties but on behalf of Exs. A1 to A8 are marked and on behalf of Opposite party Exs. B1 and B2 documents are marked.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the pleadings, documents and written arguments filed by parties.
8. Point Nos. i Learned counsel for Complainant contended that in Kadapa though there is no branch of Sri Lankan Airlines still he can file complaint in Kadapa forum as the tickets were purchased in online. So this forum has jurisdiction.
9. Per contra learned counsel for Complainant contended that the tickets were booked in Kuwait from Kuwait to Colombo and Colombo to Chennai and as per article 33 (1) chapter III of carriage by Air (Amendment) Act 2009 this forum has no jurisdiction. He also contended that the missed bag contains cell phones and other articles which are prohibited under clause 8.3.4 Sri Lankan conditions for carriage and baggage. Therefore, the Opposite party is not liable to pay any amounts to Complainant as no deficiency in service on their part.
10. Admittedly, Sri Lankan Arilines Limited has no branch office either in Kadapa or in Andhra Pradesh. It is said that the Complainant purchased tickets from Kuwait to Colombo from Colombo to Chennai to travel in UL Flight 230 on 29-6-2016 and in UL121 on 30-6-2016 respectively. As per article 33 (1) Chapter III of carriage by air (Amendment) Act 2009 “An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the claimant for damages, in the territory of one of the State parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made or before the court having jurisdiction at the place of destination”.
11. In the present case on hand the opposite party does not have domicile of the carrier at Kadapa. The opposite party does not also have its principal place of business at Kadapa and the opposite party also does not have place of business at Kadapa within the jurisdiction of this forum to file complaint by the Complainant. Therefore, we have no hesitation that the Complainant is not entitled to file in this forum and this forum has no jurisdiction.
12. Coming to the next aspect regarding missing bag with articles of phones, food items etc., Sri Lankan conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage clause 8.3.4 the missed bag which contains personal electronic devises, money, jewellary computer metals and other paper documents must not included in the baggage.
13. Since, the missing bag said to have been contained 2 samsung mobile phones J1 & J7 Nokia phone and Sony phone, they are prohibited items in hand baggage, as per Sri Lankan conditions carriage for passengers and package and they should not have been checked in luggage bag. Further the ticket is said to be in the name of one E. Govindhan and the Tag number belongs to E. Govindhan.
14. After going through the entire material placed on record and considering the arguments by the learned counsel for both parties we hold there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the Complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands. Accordingly, point is answered against the complainant.
15. Point No. ii. In point no. i it is held that the Complainant has not come to the form with clean hands and no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant is not entitled for any claims made against the opposite party and the opposite party is not liable to pay any amounts to the Complainant and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point-ii is answered.
16. Point No. iii. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 30th day of June 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex.A1 Original reply notice issued by respondent dt.19-08-2016.
Ex.A2 Original tag (P I R) issued by the respondent dt.30-6-2016.
Ex.A3 Original reply notice issued by respondent dt.30-08-2016.
Ex.A4 Copy of legal notice to respondent dt.22-8-2016.
Ex.A5 Original reply notice issued by the respondent dt.07-9-2016.
Ex.A6 Original ticket issued by the SriLankan Air lines, dt.29-6-2016.
Ex.A7 Original General Power of Attorney of Complainant dt.23-8-2016,
Ex.A8 Original issued by the New Mahaboob Travels, Kadapa for Rs.18,700/-
dt.05-08-2016
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party: -
Ex.B1 P/c of Sri Lankan Conditions of Carriage for Passengers & Baggage.
Ex.B2 P/c of BRS Record of Sri Lankan Airlines for Passenger Mr E.Govindhan.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate for Complainant.
2) Sri S.S.D. Rama Swamy, Advocate for opposite party.
B.V.P
