National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Devraj Sharma & Anr. vs Klm North West Airlines on 9 December, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3942 OF 2013 (From the order dated 02.09.2013 in Appeal No. FA/523/12 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) With IA/7042/2013 (Exemption from filing the certified copy) 1. Devraj Sharma S/o Sh. Mehang Lal 2. Smt. Ksheim Lata W/o Sh. Dev Raj Sharma Both R/o H. No. 3894. Anubhuti, Opp. UCO Bank, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana 141 001 Petitioners/Complainants Versus KLM North West, Airlines Parkash Deep, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Present shifted to: 8th Floor, Tower C, DLF, Phase 1 Cyber City, Gurgaon Respondent/ Opp. Party (OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner no.1 : In person PRONOUNCED ON 9th December, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No.FA-523/12 Devraj Shama & Anr. Vs. KLM North West, Airlines by which, appeal filed by the petitioners for enhancement was dismissed and order of District forum allowing complaint partly was affirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/petitioners travelled from New Delhi to Atlanta (USA) and came back to New Delhi by OP/respondent airlines on 11.8.2005. It was alleged that complainants were ill-treated during the course of journey and their baggage was also damaged due to rain, thunder and storm which was costing Rs.3,96,000/-. On arrival at New Delhi, baggage was opened in the presence of staff of OP and as OP refused to suitably compensate the damage, complainants filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as per stipulation on the ticket, liability of OP is limited. It was further submitted that damage was caused beyond the control of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for damage to the goods and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and further allowed Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation. Both the parties preferred appeal. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by the order dated 26.8.2008 by learned State Commission and on the appeal filed by the complainant, the appeal was allowed vide order dated 27.5.2012 and case was remanded back to District Forum for considering the terms and conditions of the contract as printed on ticket. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties held that there was no case for enhancing limit of liability and further mentioned complaint is dismissed. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard petitioner in person and perused record.
4. Perusal of record reveals that District Forum earlier allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay compensation towards loss and compensation for mental agony. Complainant filed appeal for enhancement of compensation and learned State Commission remanded the matter back to the District Forum for considering terms and conditions of the contract. Learned District Forum found that there was no justification for enhancing limit of liability, but it appears that it was wrongly mentioned complaint is dismissed because case had already been partly allowed and learned State Commission on appeal of the complainant remanded the matter back only for consideration of terms and conditions of the contract.
5. Now, the petitioners have filed this revision petition for enhancement of compensation. Petitioner submitted that as per baggage liability conditions on the ticket, petitioner was entitled to US$2500 per passenger, whereas learned District Forum has allowed less compensation and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.
6. We do not find any substance in the submissions of the petitioners. Admittedly, journey of the complainants was not within United States, but it was international journey from United States to Delhi and as per terms and conditions of the ticket, the liability was limited upto US$ 20 per kg meaning thereby, every passenger was entitled to maximum 640 US$ in check baggage, whereas learned District Forum has already allowed higher amount to the petitioners. Learned District Forum rightly held that limit of US$2500 per baggage cannot apply and learned State Commission rightly dismissed appeal filed by the petitioners.
7. We do not find any infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k