State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Qatar Airways, Doha, vs G.Madhusoodanan, on 25 October, 2008
.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 418/2002
M/s.Qatar Airways,Doha,Qatar
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
International Airport Authority of India
G.Madhusoodanan
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
2. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. M/s.Qatar Airways,Doha,Qatar
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. International Airport Authority of India
2. G.Madhusoodanan
For the Appellant :
1. F.Eugine Fernandez
For the Respondent :
1.
2.
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL NO.418/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 25.10.2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M/S. Qatar Airways, Doha, Qataar, : APPELLANT Represented by the Station Manager, Geethanjali Building, T.C.15/1897, Vazhuthacad, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. F.Eugine Fernandez) Vs.
1. G.Madhusoodanan, Vaniyamkottavila Veedu, : RESPONDENTS Plavila, Thirumala.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V.S.Bhasurendran Nair)
2. The International Airport Authority of India, represented by its Director, Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.K.L.Narasimhan) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party in OP377/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthpauram. The opposite parties are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.52,000/- as property loss with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.
2. The case of the complainant is that on his journey from Doha to Thiruvananthapuram on 13.4.2000 in the airlines of the appellant his hand baggage was taken by the staff of the opposite party and put in the checked in baggage. The above was found missing on arrival. At the embarkation point the hand baggage was forcibly taken from him by the officials of the appellant. The value of the articles contained in the above baggage is Rs.2,28,690/25410 Riyals. He has claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3. The appellant/1st opposite party has admitted the loss of baggage. It is pointed out that the complainant can carry only 20 Kgs in aggregate. It is also pointed out that contents of the baggage were not declared. It is mentioned that the inflated value is mentioned. The opposite party has also relied on Rule 22(2) Schedule II of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and that the liability has to be limited to 20 US dollars per Kg. After considering the weight of the delivered baggage (including the lost luggage there was two baggages) the weight of the lost baggage is calculated at 7 Kgs. An amount of Rs.140 US dollars was offered to the complainant. But he was not amenable to receive the same.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and DW1 and Exts.P1 to P6.
5. PW1 is power of attorney holder of the complainant. PW2 is a person who traveled along with the complainant and whose hand baggage was also possessed by the staff of the opposite party/appellants and pleaded along with check in baggage. DW1 is the airport Manager of the 1st opposite party.
6. We find that the Forum has not considered the provisions of law applicable and has just awarded compensation of Rs. 52,000, and Rs.15,000 somewhat in an arbitrary manner. Ext.P3 is the passenger property questionnaire handed over to the complainant on 13.4.2000, the date of travel. It was filled in and given to the opposite party only on 6.5.2000. It is pointed out that Ext.P3 is submitted after deliberation. The weight of the lost luggage mentioned in Ext.P3 is 28 Kgs whereas PW1 has testified in the cross examination that the weight of the same would be 5 to 6 Kgs. In the complaint the actual weight is not mentioned but it is stated that it was a personal briefcase. Ext.P4 is the complaint to the sub Inspector dated 6.5.2000 also. It is mentioned therein also that the lost baggage was a briefcase. Averment in the complaint is he was just carrying a personal briefcase permitted to be carried in the cabin and that it was forcibly taken away by the staff of the opposite party. It is not disputed that a passenger is permitted to carry a hand baggage of 7Kg only. Evidently it was on account of the over weight that the luggage was taken away and put in along with the check in baggage. We find that the evidence of the complainant is not consistent as to the weight of the lost baggage. As per Rule 22(2)(a) of the IInd schedule to the Carriage by Air Act the liability of the carrier is limited to Rs.250 Francs per Kg. unless the passenger has made a special declaration and paid a supplementary sum if the same is required . As per Rule 25 limits the liability specified in Rule 22 can be overcome only if it is proved that the damage resulted from the act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; provided that in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that he was acting within the scope of his employment. In the instant case the allegation is that the hand bag was forcibly taken. PW1 is not the witness of the incident. PW2 has admitted that his luggage was also lost and that he has also filed an OP. PW2 cannot be said to be a disinterested witness. Exceeding the permitted weight can only be the reason for removing the luggage to check in section. Ext.P3 submitted by the complainant himself mentions that the weight of the lost luggage is 28 Kgs. There is no bills and other documents produced in support of the case that so much of articles worth Rs.2,28,690/- were lost. The alleged items included 25 gold coins, one gold necklace, 8 gold plated watches that including 4 Rado, 4 Rolux, Video camera etc. Evidently the passengers has permitted to carry only 7 Kg of hand baggage and 20 Kg check in baggage. In the absence of declaration envisaged we find that carrier is liable only to pay the amount specified in Rule 22 (2)(h) of the IInd Schedule to the Act and nothing more. The above amount is admittedly received already. In the circumstance the order of the Forum is set aside.
In the result the appeal is allowed.
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER ps ...................... JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU ...................... SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA