National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Srilankan Airlines vs Subhash Chawla on 27 November, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1252 OF 2008 (From the order dated 29.01.2008 in First Appeal No. A-08/18 and A-08/60 of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) M/s. Srilankan Airlines Ltd. Room No. 312, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Avenue New Delhi 110001. ... Petitioner Versus Subhash Chawla s/o late Sh. H.C. Chawla r/o 138, SFS Flat Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi 110009. Respondent
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Shakti K. Pattnaik, Advocate For the Respondent(s) Mr. Subhash Chawla, In person PRONOUNCED ON : 27th NOVEMBER 2013 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in two appeals filed before them, i.e., Appeal No. A-08/18 M/s Srilankan Airlines Ltd. versus Sh. Subhash Chawla and Appeal No. A-08/60 Sh. Subhash Chawla versus M/s Srilankan Airlines Ltd vide which, while dismissing both the appeals, the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, K.G. Marg, New Delhi in consumer complaint no. CC/624/06 filed by the present respondent allowing the complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Subhash Chawla along with his wife and two children made an excursion tour of Singapore, Malaysia, etc. and booked tickets from Srilankan Airlines through the agent M/s. D. Pauls Travels. They were provided return air-tickets of Srilankan Airlines with confirmed seats booking from New Delhi to Malaysia on 10.4.2006, Malaysia to Singapore on 15.4.2006 and from Singapore to New Delhi on 21.04.2006. For their return journey to Delhi on 21.04.2006, when the complainant and his family reached Changi Airport, Singapore on 21.04.2006, the staff of Srilankan Airlines refused to accept their baggage which included a Sony television. The television set had to be brought by another aircraft as unaccompanied baggage for which they were charged Rs.22,671/- (equivalent to 775 Singapore dollars).
3. As per the complainant, he could not get the benefit of custom duty free allowance at Delhi Airport and had to further spend an amount of Rs.1,000/- on transportation. The version of the respondent was that the weight and measurement of the television set was in excess of the permissible limits and moreover, the television set, being an electronic item, was not permitted to be carried as accompanied baggage by the Airlines. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum and the said Forum vide their order dated 12.12.2007 allowed the same and asked the OP/petitioner to reimburse a sum of Rs.22,671/- for their wrongful refusal to carry the television set on the aircraft. The District Forum also allowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant for deficiency in service.
A sum of Rs.10,000/- was also allowed as cost of litigation. Two appeals were filed against this order, one by the complainant for enhancement of compensation and the other by the petitioner, but both the appeals were dismissed vide impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
4. At the time of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner Airlines stated that the complainant has no legal right to carry baggage more than 32 kg per piece. Moreover, under the general conditions of carriage (passengers and baggage) of Srilankan Airlines Ltd. as contained in para 8.3.4 and 8.4.2 of these conditions, a television set was not categorised as baggage and such conditions are applicable to all passengers. For ready reference, clause 8.3.4 and 8.4.2 of the General Conditions of Carriage read as follows:-
8.3.4 You must not include in checked Baggage money, jewellery, precious metals, computers, personal electronic devices, negotiable papers, securities or other valuables, business documents, passports and other identification documents or samples.
8.4.2 We may refuse to carry as Baggage any item reasonably considered by us to be unsuitable for carriage because of its size, shape, weight, content, character, or for safety or operational reasons, or the comfort of other passengers. Information about unacceptable items is available upon request.
5. Learned counsel further stated that as per the documents by which the said television set was brought as unaccompanied baggage, it is clearly mentioned that the weight of the television set was 33 kg. but the chargeable weight was 67 kg. This document was issued by the Airports Authority of India.
Srilankan Airlines had, therefore, not committed any deficiency in service.
6. The complainant/respondent who argued the case in person, stated that he and his family were not told by the Airlines that a television set could not be brought as accompanied baggage in the flight. It was a matter of general practice that television sets are allowed in the flights by the other Airlines. The petitioner never informed them about the terms and conditions governing their flights. In case, there is no mention of the conditions on the ticket or on the website maintained by the Airlines, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The complainant made reference to the Baggage Rules in India, saying that there was no bar on carrying of electronic items or a television set in the Aircraft. The complainant/respondent has also drawn our attention to the baggage policy followed by many other airlines like Air India, Thai Airways, Singapore Airlines, etc., according to which, if there is an excess baggage, the same is allowed by the airlines subject to charging additional money for the same at the prescribed rates, as per the policy of the said airlines. In the present case also, the Airlines should not have refused to accept the television set in question, and if it was found over-weight or over-sized, they should have been charged extra amount for the same.
7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
8. The basic issue involved in the present case is that a Sony-Ericsson television set brought by the complainant to the Airport was not allowed by the Srilankan Airlines to be brought as checked-in baggage and the same had to be brought by the complainant as unaccompanied baggage through some other airlines, for which he had to incur an additional sum of money. The main ground taken by the Airlines says that as per the general conditions of Carriage of the Srilankan Airlines, electronic devices are not allowed to be carried as checked-in baggage and moreover the television set, in question, was over-weight and over-sized. It is clear from the airway bill issued by the Airport Authority of India that the gross weight of the item in question was 33 kg. whereas its volumetric weight was 67 kg., considering the size of the television set. It is an admitted fact that a passenger travelling on Srilankan Airlines is allowed to carry only 32 kg. of weight.
The stand of Srilankan Airlines that the baggage allowance for more than one passengers travelling together, cannot be clubbed, is not disputed, based on the general practice followed in this regard. However, it is a matter of common observation that if there is excess baggage, the Airlines charge extra amount of money as per the rates preannounced by them in their policy for carrying such baggage. It is also clear that a television set is not a banned item and the airlines do allow the carriage of television sets in checked-in baggage.
It is however open to the Airlines to charge extra money for the excess baggage based on the volumetric weight. As it was over-weight by 1 kg. and other airlines booked the luggage after charging extra amount, petitioner should also have booked the television after charging extra amount. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that there is some deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner which caused harassment to the respondent.
9. Though, the District Forum allowed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation which was affirmed by State Commission but looking to the nature of the case, we deem it appropriate to reduce compensation to Rs.50,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.
10. The District Forum also directed the petitioner to refund baggage charges of Rs.22,671/- and the State Commission upheld that charge. Respondent has incurred this charge in booking television by another airlines. Had he booked this television with the petitioner he was also required to pay the similar charges to the petitioner. In such circumstances, respondent is not entitled to get refund of Rs.22,671/-. The District Forum has committed error in allowing refund of aforesaid charges.
The State Commission further committed error in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on this count.
11. In the light of above discussion, this revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant in place of Rs.1 lakh as allowed by the District Forum in their order dated 12.12.2007. The petitioner shall not be liable to pay Rs.22,671/- as baggage charges as discussed above.
However, the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant as allowed by the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER RS/