State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Abdul Rasheed vs The Managing Director, Qatar Airways on 9 January, 2018
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.524/13 JUDGMENT DATED:09.01.2018 PRESENT : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT SHRI.V.V.JOSE : MEMBER Abdul Rasheed, Advocate, Vanchiyoor, : APPELLANT (Director, Kairali TV, Thiruvananthapuram) (By Adv: Sri. C.S. Rajmohan) Vs. The Managing Director, Qatar Airways, Post Box No.7250, Qatar Airways Towers, Doha. Kuruvila Mathew, Area Manager, Qatar Airways, Geethanjali Buildings, : RESPONDENTS Vazhuthacaud, TVPM. The Manager, Austrian Airlines, GSA, Jet Air Pvt. Ltd., BAB Chambers, Atlantics Junction, M.G.Road, Ravipuram, Kochi-15. (R1 & R2 BY Adv: M/s P.D. Viswambharan & C.A. Nandakumar) JUDGMENT
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT This above appeal is filed by the complainant, whose complaint numbered as OP.210/2004 dated 31.10.2012 was partly allowed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, to the extent complaint was not allowed.
2. Complainant while travelling through European countries purchasing air ticket from the first opposite party lost one of his baggages. He was travelling in the air lines operated by the opposite parties. alleging that the baggage lost containED valuable items and there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in returning the baggage He laid the complaint before the Forum to direct them to pay him compensation of Rs.5,30,700/- with interest. Opposite parties resisted the claim contending that the missing of baggage was for reasons beyond their control and there was no laches or default on their part over the loss of the baggage. They also contended that under the rules and regulations of the Carriage by Air Act their liability is limited to a maximum of Rs.200 US dollars ie at the rate of 20 US dollars per 10 Kg. of weight. Maintainability of the complaint was also challenged by them disputing the empowerment of the Forum to entertain the complaint.
3. Evidence consisted of the testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 on his side and DW1 and Exts.D1 to D4 for the opposite parties. The Forum below appreciating the materials concluded that the complainant was a consumer and his complaint was maintainable against the opposite parties. As regards his claim for compensation finding force and merit in the contention taken by the opposite parties that liability is limited to the extent governed by Carriage by Air Act, the Forum directed the 3rd opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.200 US dollars with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. As against that Order and not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded complainant has preferred this appeal.
4. We heard the counsel for the appellant and respondents 1 and 2. After service of notice 3rd opposite party remained absent. Perused the records. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on Rule 22(a) of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 contended that the liability of the air line when loss of registered luggage and of goods takes place is limited to a sum of Rs.250/- frank per kilogram and as such complainant is entitled to at least refixation of the compensation and what has been awarded as compensation limiting it to 200 US dollars for the loss of goods is not correct. Compensation has to be refixed in terms of Rule 22(2) of the above Act is the submission of the counsel. Applicability of Rule 22(2) for fixing the compensation over loss of registered baggage and goods during transit on air journey by air lines is not disputed by the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. A statement showing the calculation of amount in Indian rupees in terms of the above rule with respect to a lost luggage of 10 Kgs of weight is produced by counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 and its correctness is accepted by the counsel for complainant. Statement shows that as on the date of loss of registered luggage ie 31.10.2012 the value of 2500/- Franc equaled one Euro and the money value with reference to Euro would come to Rs.26,602/-. In accordance with the above rule compensation for the loss of luggage of complainant is determined then he was entitled to Rs.26,602/-. So, the order of the lower Forum providing compensation for the lost luggage at Rs.200/- US dollars has to be modified and refixed as Rs.26,602/-. We do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation fixed at Rs.10,000/- and cost awarded at Rs.2000/-, both of which are found just and reasonable.
In the result appeal is partly allowed modifying the sum of compensation fixed by the lower Forum granting Rs.26,602/- in lieu of the sum of Rs.200/- US dollars, with compensation and cost as ordered by the lower Forum. The above sums shall be paid by the 3rd opposite party within one month from the date of this judgment failing which the principal amount of Rs.26,602/-, the amount fixed as compensation for loss of luggage, will carry interest at 10% per annum till realization. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT V.V.JOSE : MEMBER VL.