State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rakesh Patodia vs Emirates Airways on 15 February, 2008
BEFORE THE ADDL BEFORE THE ADDL.DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM AT PUNE Date of filing Case no. APDF/139/2004 Date of filing Case no. APDF/139/2004 of the complaint : 20/10/2004 Date of decision : 15/2/2008 Date of decision : 15/2/2008 Mr. Rakesh R. Patodia .. ) R/at - 334/335, Koregaon Park, .. ) North Main Road, Krishna Kunj, .. ) PUNE - 411 001 .. ) COMPLAINANT PUNE - 411 001 .. ) COMPLAINANT V/S 1. Emirates Airways, .. ) Through its Manager, .. ) Bombay Office, .. ) 3, Mittal Chamber, Ground Floor, .. ) 228, Nariman Point, .. ) MUMBAI - 400 021 .. ) 2. Travel Masters .. ) East Street/EGTD, Galleria, .. ) Camp, PUNE - 411 001 .. ) OPPONENTS Coram : Smt. M. M. Sukhatme President Shri. Shriniwas D.Kankurikar Member
Smt. S. A. Bichkar Member Present : Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Shri. D. S. Gavhane.
Lrd. Adv. Shri. Ajit Jambli for Opponent No.1.
PER SMT. M. M. SUKHATME, PRESIDENT ** J U D G M E N T ** (15/2/2008) This is the complaint filed by the complainant Mr. Rakesh R. Patodia against the opponents Emirates Airways, through its Manager and Travel Masters alleging deficiency in service against them.
The brief facts are as follows, The complainant wanted to go to Tehran for his business purpose on 30/11/2003 and therefore he approached opponent no.2 and paid Rs. 29,558/- for ticket and the opponent no.2 gave ticket dtd. 30/11/2003, flight no. EK 503, connecting to EK 975 via Dubai by Emirates Airways from Mumbai to Tehran and on 30/11/2003, the complainant boarded this flight and reached Tehran on 1/12/2003 at about 0200 hrs. According to the complainant, the opponent no.1 assured that his baggage will be handed over to him at his arrival at Tehran immediately, but the opponent no.1 failed to handover the baggages inspite of demanding the same i.e. warm clothes, medicines, regular clothing etc. It is submitted by the complainant that, due to delay in handing over the baggages, he had no alternative other than to buy new warm clothes to wear and other clothing, because the temperature in Tehran was 4 to 6 degree centigrade with intermittent rainfall and spent U.S. $ 398/- for purchasing clothes and medicines toiletries and other expenses. It is further submitted by the complainant that, he was a heart patient with Angioplasty done in Dec. 2001, so he is required to carry medicines with him every time, but due to delay in handing over the baggages by the opponent no.1, he was forced to buy medicines with great difficulties, as there was no doctor's prescription. According to the complainant, due to delay in handing over the baggages, it was unable for him to do his business work comfortably and wasted 2 days for examining to the airport authorities and therefore sustained great loss in his business and has to spent money to visit 3 to 4 times to the airport authorities. It is stated by the complainant that he made complaint no. 16352 dtd. 1/12/2003 demanding compensation and the same was reminded on 6/12/2003 and on 7/12/2003 he personally met Mr. Khasti Nejat, Executive Sales Manager of opponent no. 1, but the opponent neither responded nor sent any reply till today and hence the complainant lodged this present complaint before this Forum asking an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from opponent no.1 and 2.
The complainant alongwith the complaint has filed his affidavit in support of the complaint and the documents with list, which includes copy of ticket, copy of bill, copy of notice, copy of reply notice etc. The Forum sent notice to both the opponents and the opponent no.1 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing their written statement supported by an affidavit.
The notice of the opponent no. 2 returned unserved with postal endorsement "Left address, not known", therefore the Forum directed the complainant to give new address of the opponent no. 2, but thereafter on 6/12/2007 the complainant filed purshis stating that they have made opponent no.2 as a formal party and he is not having any grievance against the opponent no.2 and asked for deletion of the name of the opponent no.2.
According to the opponent no.1, the complainant had checked in two pieces of baggages at Mumbai airport for delivery at Tehran via Dubai and they agreed that when the complainant arrived Tehran, his checked baggage's did not arrive on the same flight and they were not aware, whether the baggage contained warm clothes, medicines etc., the complainant had not made any declaration at Mumbai airport at the time of check in of his baggage as to the contents of the checked baggages. It is submitted by the opponent that, the complainant was well aware about the cold temperature at Tehran and therefore he should have carried his warm cloths in his hand baggage. It is further submitted by the opponent that they were not aware that the complainant was a heart patient with Angioplasty done in Dec. 2001 and in the normal circumstances medicines and items of immediate need are always carried in the hand baggage of the passenger and never in the checked in baggage and therefore for negligence act of the complainant, the opponent can not be held responsible. According to the opponent, the baggage of the complainant was delivered to him on December 2, 2003 within a day of his arrival at Tehran. The opponent has denied that no proper response was given to the complainant in respect of his missing baggage and in fact they offered the complainant a sum of US $50, being the maximum amount payable for delay in delivery of his baggage by one day, as interim relief for purchase of immediate necessities, but the complainant refused the said relief. Lastly, it is contended by the opponent that, they had replied to the notice of the complainant and though there was a delay of one day in delivery of baggage, this opponent offered the complainant a sum of US $ 50 as interim relief in full and final settlement as per airline industry norms and complainant is not entitled to any further compensation. With this the opponent has asked for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The opponent filed affidavit of Shri. Salem Obaidalla, Vice President, India & Nepal.
Both the sides filed their written notes of argument. The Forum has gone through the entire record produced by both the sides. The points for consideration and determination before the Forum are as follows, POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether opponent committed deficiency in :
service? : No 2. What order? : As per final order REASONS FOR FINDINGS Admittedly the complainant purchased ticket of opponent no.1 airways, dtd. 30/11/2003 from opponent no.2 for the flight no. EK 503 connecting to EK 975 via Dubai, from Mumbai to Tehran and he traveled through the above mentioned flight and reached Tehran on 1/2/2003. It is not the complaint of the complainant that during travelling period, he suffered any inconvenience or opponent failed to give proper service during travelling period, but it is the case of the complainant that after reaching Tehran, there was delay in delivery of his baggages to him by the opponent no.1. According to the complainant, as the temperature of Tehran was 4 to 6 degree centigrade, he has to spent money for purchasing warm clothes and other clothes. Further more, as he is the heart patient, he has to purchase his medicines also and has to incur overall an amount of U.S. $ 398/- i.e. approximately 20,000/-. It is the contention of the opponent that, on arrival at Tehran, the baggage of the complainant did not arrive on the same flight and therefore there was delay in delivery of the baggage. Further more, it is also asserted by the opponent no. 1 that as complainant was well aware about the temperature of Tehran, he should have kept his warm clothes in his hand baggage and also he should have kept his medicines in his
hand baggages. The Forum does not found any reason to disbelieve the opponent no.1. When complainant himself has stated that, he was aware regarding the temperature of Tehran, he should have kept all the warm clothes in his hand baggage or wear the same while travelling. Like wise in respect of complainant's complaint regarding purchasing medicines, the Forum is of the view that, when complainant is a heart patient with Angioplasty done Dec. 2001, he must have taking his medicines regularly i.e. in flight also, then he should have keep all his medicines in his hand baggage only. The complainant neither in his complaint nor in his affidavit has stated that when he received his baggages from the opponent, the complainant merely stated that near about after 48 hours, he received his baggages from the opponent no.1. After perusal of the record, it appears that complainant reached Tehran on 1/12/2003 and the opponent delivered his hand baggages to the complainant on 2/12/2003, i.e. within one day, the opponent no.1 delivered baggages of the complainant to him.
Further more, it is also pertinent to note that the complainant never pleaded that the staff of the opponent intentionally delivered the baggages delayed or there is no such evidence on record to show that the staff of the opponent no.1 intentionally delivered the baggages delayed to the complainant, therefore the Forum is of the view that there is no deficiency on the part of the opponent no.1. The opponent no.1 is relied on the authority of Hon'ble National Commission, which is as follows, 2002 CCC 11 (NS) "Mrs. Helen Wallia V/S Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd."
"Baggage -- loss of -- complainant filed complaint seeking Rs. 24,63,885/- (US $ 54753) for loss of one baggage This limit would not apply if it was done with the intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. There is no such plea in spite of assertion by the learned counsel for the complainant that the baggage of the complainant was lost intentionally by the opposite party -- no merits in the complaint -- dismissed."
The abovementioned authority is applicable to the present case before us It also appeared from the record that, the opponent no.1 offered a sum of US $ 50 to the complainant being the maximum compensation, but the complainant refused to accept the said offer. Therefore considering the above discussion and the entire facts and the circumstances, the Forum does not found any deficiency on service on the part of the opponent no.1 and hence we answer our issue no.1 as negative.
As far as the opponent no.2 is concerned, the complainant already deleted the opponent no.2, as he is not having any grievance against them.
Considering the facts and the circumstances and the entire record we pass the following order, ** O R D E R **
1. Complaint stands dismissed with no order as to the cost.
2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
(Smt. S. A. Bichkar) (Shriniwas D.Kankurikar) (Smt. M. M. Sukhatme) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT PLACE : PUNE DATE : 15/2/2008