State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.,Vittal ... vs Manish Thakkar S/O.Harish Thakkar, ... on 30 November, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBERF.A.776/2010
[Against order in C.C.No.77/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Salem] DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011 M/s.Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., | UB Tower, Level 12, UB City, 24, | Appellant / 1st Opposite Party Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore
1. | Rep. by its General Manager. | Vs.
1. Manish Thakkar, | 1st Respondent/Complainant S/o.Harish Thakkar, | 115/B, 3rd Floor, Omalur Main Road, HoH | Salem 636 007. |
2. Sri Swarnambiga Travels, | 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party 124/1, Town Railway Station Road, | Salem, HoH | Rep. by its Manager. | The first respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to repay the sum of Rs.18,000/- for the actual loss of the baggage and to pay Rs.80,000/- towards mental agony and damages. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the first OP, against the said order, this appeal is preferred, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.2.12.2009 in C.C.77/2008.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant /1st OP : Mr.A.Palaniappan, Advocate.
Counsel for 1Respt/Complainant : Mr.S.Kalyana, Advocate.
For 2nd Respondent/2nd OP : Notice dispensed with.
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The first opposite party in C.C.77/2008 on the file of the District Forum, Salem, is the appellant.
2. The first respondent/complainant traveled after booking Air ticket through the second opposite party, in the Airlines operated by the first opposite party, along with his two baggages, worth about Rs.13,000/- and Rs.5,000/-. On landing Bangalore Airport, the complainant has noticed that the baggages were damaged, due to mishandling of the first opposite party, for which, damage certificate was issued, offering a meager sum of Rs.750/-, which was not accepted. The baggages which were damaged cannot be used at all, and therefore, the complainant is entitled to the value of the two baggages, in addition to, a sum of Rs.80,000/-. Thus claiming, the value of the damaged baggages as well as a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation, a consumer complaint was filed.
3. The first opposite party questioning the maintainability of the case on the basis of the non-joinder of necessary party namely Deccan Aviation Limited in which alone the complainant traveled, further contending that there was no complete damage in the baggages, whereas the nature of damage was clearly referred in the Certificate, for which, reasonable amount was offered forthwith, but the complainant refused to receive the same, demanding the value of the damaged baggages, which cannot be treated as negligence act or deficiency in service, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum though given a finding that the complainant has not proved the value of the baggages as well the actual damage sustained by two baggages, generously granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the damages caused to the bags, as well as a further sum of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, in addition to, a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs, totaling a sum of Rs.25,000/-, as per the order dated 02.12.2009, which is under challenge.
5. The complainant, having booked air tickets from Mumbai to Bangalore traveled in the Aircraft operated by Deccan Aviation, which was taken over by the first opposite party, whatever may be the flight number. It is also an admitted fact that he had taken two baggages along with him. On landing at Bangalore Airport, the complainant had noticed some damages in the baggages, for which, a report was given, based upon which, property damage list was prepared [Ex.B5], which indicates Wheels, Name Tag broken and no other damage is notified. It is not the case of the complainant, that Ex.B5 report is incorrect.
Therefore, if at all for the mishandling the luggage by the first opposite party or the Airport Authority, the complainant is entitled to only proportionate costs, for damages or in other words, to restore the baggages to its original position after making necessary repairs and certainly not the value of the goods as claimed, in the complaint along with disproportionate compensation of Rs.80,000/-.
6. As recorded by the District Forum, the complainant has not produced the damaged baggages also, and similarly he has not produced any estimate for repairing the baggage or to prove the actual value of the baggages also. This being the position, the complainant is not entitled to the value of the baggages, whether it is Rs.13,000/- or Rs.5,000/- as the case may be and if at all as per Ex.B5 alone, the complainant is entitled to the damages. Unfortunately, though the District Forum had taken cognizance about the insufficient proof, to prove the value of the damage, as well as to prove the value of the baggage, for the repair of the wheels alone, granting compensation of Rs.10,000/- is highly exorbitant. During the transit by the mishandling of the staff, or on its own in the Conveyer Belt there are chances for damages, and realizing their vicarious liability, the Airlines offered to pay a sum of Rs.750/-, which the complainant ought to have accepted the same magnanimously, but unfortunately, he went to the level of claiming a sum of Rs.18,000/- and Rs.80,000/- as costs of the baggages, as well as compensation for mental agony, since we are unable to understand, what kind of mental agony the complainant would have, suffered so as to say he should have suffered to that extent. By the damage to the wheel, if at all there would not have been some mobility and by the removal of the tag, nothing would have happened. However, when the matter was brought to the knowledge of the first opposite party, they offered the reasonable amount. The District Forum having rightly recorded a finding, the complainant has not proved the case, exceeded its jurisdiction, in awarding the damage as well as compensation, as well as exorbitant costs, which are all required to be slashed down, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we quantified the damage caused to the bag and etc. only at Rs.1,500/- which alone is liable to be paid, by the first opposite party and accordingly the order is to be modified.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum, directing the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- in full quit of the claim, negativing the rest of the claim. No order as to costs in this appeal.
8. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.12,500/- out of which, on Memo, the complainant is entitled to withdraw the above said sum. The Registry is directed to pay the balance of deposit with accrued interest to the appellant/first opposite party.
J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT