Order No. 7 dt. 21/10/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant and her mother left Kolkata Airport for having a journey to Paris on 8.8.15. The date of return journey was 12.9.15 from Paris to Kolkata. On their return at Kolkata Airport at the time of collecting the baggage they could not find one trolley bag and the said fact was reported to the Air India office and lodged one complaint. The complainant got back the bag on 17.9.15. The mishandled baggage reported was affixed with the said bag. The complainant after loosing the said bag had suffered mental agony since the bag contained the cheques signed by her father. In view of the said fact the complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for deficiency in service.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the case is not maintainable since the Air India has not been made a party. It was also stated that the complainant along with her mother was booked Kolkata-Delhi-Paris-Delhi-Kolkata by Air India flight on 8.8.15 and returned on 12.9.15. At the time of returning from Paris on 12.9.15 both of them were carrying one piece checked in baggage each and was through checked at airport against baggage tag no.AI235671 and AI235688. On arrival at Kolkata received one bag and while it was found that another bag was not received a mishandled baggage file was created at Kolkata Airport to trace the baggage. The baggage was left behind at Delhi Airport and the same was forwarded to Kolkata on 16.9.15 and it was delivered at the complainant’s residence on 17.9.15. The complainant lodged a written complaint on 20.10.15 and threatened to take legal action for delayed delivery of baggage. The complainant was offered to pay Rs.3000/- as interim relief towards delayed delivery of baggage but the complainant did not receive. The o.ps. further stated that they are ready to pay Rs.3000/- as interim relief towards delayed delivery of baggage and as per the rule the said amount was offered to the complainant.
The o.ps. denied that there was any deficiency in service in which the complainant will be entitled to get the compensation as prayed for.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant had lost one baggage at the time of return journey from Paris to Kolkata.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The complainant herself pleaded the case. It was submitted by the complainant that the baggage contained some valuable gift times sent by her brother from Paris for family members. When they were worried about the belongings the children and family members were eager to see the gifts. Because of not getting the bag the complainant was worried and he kept contact with the o.ps. The complainant stated that she has not asked for loss of any item of her baggage. It is the duty of the airlines staff to declare the most important terms and conditions at the time of receiving the baggage. The payment of interim relief of Rs.3000/- is not acceptable by the complainant since the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in the similar nature of case and the baggage was recovered and handed over after delay of 18 days the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi directed to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh for loss of baggage. Hon’ble State Commission after considering the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the said amount. On the basis of the said ruling the complainant demanded Rs.2 lakhs as compensation from the o.ps.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the weight of the suitcase recorded at the destination i.e. at Kolkata was not less than that which was at the time of checking in at Paris. The passenger has neither insured the baggage nor revealed the contains of the baggage at the time of checking in. as per routine practice passengers were asked to carry in hand bag. Apart from delay in receiving the baggage the complainant has no other loss. The delay in receiving the bank cheque book and toys has not created any loss to the complainant and the complainant has not provided any evidence to that effect. In order to substantiate the argument of the o.ps. ld. lawyer for the o.ps. relied on a decision viz. Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another decided on 2.11.1999 the bench presided over by Hon’ble Judges S. Ahmed and P.P. Shety. In the said case it was decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the bona fide action taken bythe staff of the responded airlines cannot be held to be a deficiency in service. Apart from the said fact the airlines also expressed their unqualified apology to the complainant. On the basis of the said fact Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no deficiency in service.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant along with her mother had availed of the journey from Kolkata to Paris and Paris to Kolkata. On their return to Kolkata Airport it was found that one baggage was lost. The said fact was reported to the airport officials and they took the initiative to trace out the lost baggage. Ultimately the lost baggage was traced out and it was delivered to the complainant’s residence on 17.9.15 i.e. only 4 days delay was committed in delivering the baggage to the complainant. The complainant before institution of this case sent a lawyer’s letter praying for compensation and the said letter was replied by the o.ps. with offering of the amount of Rs.3000/- as interim relief but the complainant did not accept the said amount and filed the case. On perusal of the judgment cited by the complainant it is found that in one case the baggage was not found and in another case as mentioned in the judgment itself that there was pilferage of the baggage and accordingly Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to impose compensation of Rs.1 lakh. But here in this case the complainant herself admitted that there was the same weight while she booked the baggage at Paris and she received the baggage at Kolkata afterwards at her residence and there was no loss any article from the said baggage and she got back the baggage in locked condition. Therefore the ruling as cited by the complainant is not applicable in this case.
So far as the mental agony is concerned certainly the complainant suffered some mental agony and in order to compensate her mental agony she will be entitled to get the compensation not the amount as claimed by her but for giving some relief to her we hold that if the compensation is allowed to the tune of Rs.5000/- she will be compensated adequately. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.594/2015 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
