State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Uzbekistan Airways vs Sh. Maninderjit Singh on 13 January, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1078 of 2005
Date of institution : 19.8.2005
Date of decision : 13.1.2011
The Uzbekistan Airways, Room No.106, Hotel Ritz Plaza, 45, The Mall, Amritsar
through its Deputy Station Manager, Sunnatullah Gaipov.
.......Appellants
Versus
Sh. Maninderjit Singh @ Mohinderjit Singh son of S. Hakam Singh, resident of
House No.K-36-A, Near Astbal Gate, Faridkot.
......Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 8.6.2005 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri Veneet Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The controversy involved in this appeal is whether the respondent was entitled to any compensation for the loss of goods by the appellant Airlines when the respondent was travelling in their aircraft from London to Amritsar?
2. The respondent had travelled by Uzbekistan Airways (appellants) from Rajasansi Airport, Amirtsar to London to meet his wife Surinder Kaur who was a British citizen. He was to undertake return journey on 12.10.2003 but no ticket was available in the economy class. The respondent had admittedly paid another amount of Rs.17,500/- and he was allowed to travel in Club Class of the aircraft from London to Rajasansi Airport, Amritsar. However the baggage of the respondent was not received in India which had tag No.AZ311902/HY048156. It was an attaché case. The appellants had assured the respondent that after the baggage was traced he would be informed to collect the baggage. First Appeal No.1078 of 2005. 2
3. The respondent received the information that the baggage was traced. The respondent reached the Amritsar office of the appellants on 20.10.2003 to collect his baggage. He found that not only the attache case was broken but various items kept in the attache case for the total value of 4384.28 pounds sterling were missing. The equivalent value of the items in Indian currency was Rs.3,73,000/-. Hence the complaint for recovery of excess amount of Rs.17,500/- charged from the respondent plus the value of the lost articles to the tune of Rs.3,73,000/-. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
4. The appellants admitted that the respondent had travelled from London to India in their aircraft on 12.10.2003 in the Club Class. Since the respondent had the open ticket and when he reached the airport London no seat was available in the economy class, therefore, the extra amount was charged from the respondent and he was allowed to travel in the Club Class.
5. Regarding broken baggage and missing articles, it was pleaded by the appellants that the respondent was having only one baggage with tag No.AZ311902 having the weight of 32 kilograms. It was inadvertently left at Tashkent airport, which was a transit station. The respondent was not able to collect the baggage but without any loss of time, the baggage report was made when the respondent reached Amritsar and the baggage arrived in Amritsar under Rush Tag No.HY048156. It was denied if the baggage was broken or if the items were missing as no such complaint was made by the respondent to the custom authorities. The weight of the baggage was given 31/32 kilograms which clearly proved that the baggage was intact when it was delivered to the respondent. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The parties had produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
7. Learned District Forum had partly accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/- vide impugned order dated 8.6.2005 and directed the appellants to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the respondent. First Appeal No.1078 of 2005. 3
8. Hence the appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed written arguments and also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported as "Sunshine Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Thai Airways International Ltd." 2003(1)CLT 430. It was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 8.6.2005 be set aside
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent also filed written arguments and submitted that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. So far as the charging of Rs.17,500/- by the appellants from the respondent is concerned, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants for the simple reason that the respondent was holding open ticket and not the ticket for specific date i.e. for 12.10.2003 for travelling from London to Rajasansi airport, Amritsar. By the time the respondent reached the airport London and wanted to travel in the economy class, the seat was not available and, therefore, the appellants charged him difference between the Club Class and the economy class to the tune of Rs.17,500/- and allowed the respondent to travel in the Club Class in their aircraft on 12.10.2003. The respondent should thank the appellants for allowing him to travel in their aircraft on 12.10.2003. Not only the respondent reached Amritsar as scheduled by him but he also availed extra facilities while travelling in the Club Class after making the payment of Rs.17,500/- extra. Therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in this connection.
13. So far as the delay in delivery of baggage, broken condition of the baggage and missing items are concerned, the respondent had alleged that the items for the value of 4384.28 pounds sterling were missing, the equivalent value of which in Indian currency was Rs.3,73,000/-.
First Appeal No.1078 of 2005. 4
14. It is not denied by the appellants that the baggage of the respondent was not put in the aircraft in which the respondent was travelling as it was left at Tashkent airport which was a transit station. It was, therefore, a deficiency in service on the part of the appellants not to deliver the baggage to the respondent on 12.10.2003 when he landed at Rajasansi Airport, Amritsar.
15. Although the respondent alleges that the baggage was delivered to him on 20.10.2003 when he received the information from the appellants but even according to the appellants, the information was given to the respondent by the appellants on 17.10.2003 but the respondent had reached 3 days thereafter i.e. on 20.10.2003. However, the fact remains that the respondent received his baggage on 20.10.2003 while he himself landed in the Rajasansi Airport on 12.10.2003 i.e. after the delay of 8 days. The appellants may not be able to appreciate the mental tension which a man suffers after his baggage is lost and is not delivered to him at the same time when he lands in the airport but the loss of the baggage and the delay in delivery of the baggage causes a huge mental tension to the person to whom it belongs and who is deprived to take it along with him to his house. The delay in delivery itself needs compensation for the respondent.
16. Moreover when the baggage is lost, it is treated as a bundle by the officials on duty to handle the baggage and not in the sophisticated manner. It is thrown from one place to another place and by one person and the other person while handling such like goods. It loses its shine and it is handled carelessly. Therefore it is bound to suffer some damage and if a part of it is broken some items, may be one or two, find the way out and get out of the baggage or get broken or damaged.
17. Even the learned District Forum has not awarded the compensation as claimed by the respondent. It has given compensation in lump sum to the tune of Rs.50,000/- although the respondent had claimed Rs.3,73,000/-. The amount of compensation awarded is justified even by the delay itself or and moreso by the damage to the baggage even if it is held that the loss of the articles is not proved First Appeal No.1078 of 2005. 5 by the respondent. The article which get damaged do not loose weight. Therefore, merely by saying that the weight of the baggage given to the respondent was 31/32 kg. does not prove if the goods of the attaché case were not broken or damaged.
18. The costs of Rs.1000/- awarded by the learned District Forum are also upheld.
19. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission in Sunshine Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) is concerned, the facts of each case are different and therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
20. In view of the discussion held above, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
21. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 19.8.2005. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
22. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent.
23. The arguments in this case were heard on 5.1.2011 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
24. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
January , 2011 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER