State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuwait Airways Corporation vs Kamal Juneja on 20 January, 2011
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 20.01.2011 Complaint No. C-8/1074 Kuwait Airways Corporation Complainant 401, 4th Floor, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. Versus Mr. Kamal Juneja Opposite party R/o AC-III, 36D, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Ms. Kanwal Inder Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter of not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi (Oral)
1. The facts of the case are that the complainant had booked his air ticket for 21.12.04 with direct flight of OP for Bombay via Kuwait from London. According to the complainant, as there was some snag in the engine of the plane, which landed at Kuwait Airport whereafter the complainant had to stay for about 24 hours, and then he boarded on Kuwait Airways for his onward journey. His first grouse is that, he stayed there long empty stomach, and at Kuwait Airport when he asked for a glass of water from airport staff they crudely informed him that there is no arrangement for water, he being a diabetic, his sugar level started receding, he was not properly attended during the flight by the flight attendants. His another grouse is that at Kuwait Airport, staff of the Kuwait Airways forcibly snatched his baggage which weighed less than 8 kg. from the complainant at the Kuwait Airport, with the assurance that they will safely carry the baggage in the luggage. When the baggage was delivered to him at Bombay Airport, he found his purse, 1050 US Dollar, mobile phone, and some essential documents. He, on 22.12.04 itself, filed a damage baggage report with the airport authorities. He also sent a legal notice to the OP Airways but in vain. He therefore filed a complaint before the District consumer Forum against the OP Kuwait Airways with the prayer that the OP be directed to refund him 1050 US Dollar amounting to Rs. 47,000/- in Indian currency, mobile or a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 3 lac as compensation for wrongful and negligent treatment, Rs. 10,000/- towards the costs of litigation.
2. The OP filed the written statement and opposed the claim pleading, that the complainants claim is inflated and imaginary. The complainant travelled without any problem with two pieces of baggage checked-in from London, at Kuwait Airport he had checked-in a third piece of baggage, and as the baggage of the complainant was of a big size and heavy weight, for security reasons and safety of co-passengers it was taken for carrying it in luggage, and no force was used in any manner. The flight had an emergency landing at Karachi Airport in Pakistan where OP provided proper food and hotel accommodation, to all passengers including the complainant. The OP denied any discomfort or negligence on their part to the complainant. The OP alleged that the complainant raised a false claim of loss of currency worth USD 1050 at Bombay Airport. He should have kept his purse money, mobile phone and essential documents with him in person rather than putting the same in checked-in baggage, as provided in Clause 8.1.1.c in EX.R2 General Conditions of Carriage. The OP alleged that in his damage baggage report, the complainant has not mentioned about the loss of purse, mobile and essential documents, which he should have discovered at the same time when he found his currency missing. The OP thus denied any loss as alleged by the complainant to him.
2. The District Consumer Forum, on consideration of evidence of both the parties, found the OP guilty for causing him mental agony, inconvenience, and unsympathetic, and directed the OP Airways to pay the complainant Rs. 8,000/- towards the loss of bag, Rs. 2 lac towards compensation, Rs. 10,000/- towards the costs of litigation.
3. That is what brings the OP Kuwait Airways Corporation in appeal before this Commission.
4. We have heard Rewa Gujral, counsel for the complainant and Shri R.P. Pandey, counsel for the OP in this appeal.
5. The claim of the complainant respondent for the loss of cash from his bag as well as mobile and valuable documents, cannot be upheld, because those things are supposed not to be kept in the baggage, which has to be checked-in luggage. It will also be seen in the Damage Baggage Report filed at Bombay Airport by the complainant, that he has only mentioned loss of 1050 US Dollars, and there was no mention by him of the loss of mobile, purse and the essential documents. The Regulations provide loss of baggage at the rate of 20 US Dollars per k.g. The loss has to be calculated in accordance to the loss of weight of the baggage.
There is no loss of weight of the baggage, and as such, according to rules, the complainant respondent was not entitled to any damages.
6. His claim for loss of dollars and mobile, purse and documents, cannot be entertained, because these things are supposed not to be kept in bag, which is to be checked-in as luggage. There is no detail of any documents, which the complainant respondent claims to have kept in the baggage, and which were lost. As such, no compensation of loss of documents can be awarded.
7. As regards the complaint of the complainant respondent, that proper services were not provided to him, the complaint of any such matter can be considered only in respect of specific complaint. The only specific complaint made by the complainant is, that he was not given water, which he needed and demanded, and it was necessary, because, he was a patient of diabetes. This Commission finds it difficult to perceive, and difficult to believe, that despite demand, water was not supplied to the complainant. The complaint seems palpably false, and the averment about the same is wholly unacceptable. Nobody is going to believe that a passengers request for a simple glass of water will be refused. We are disinclined to believe the complainant in this regard.
8. We are therefore inclined to the view, that this was not a case where any compensation could be granted, and we accordingly allow the appeal, and set aside the order of the District Consumer Forum.
9. The complaint of the complainant under appeal shall stand dismissed.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
11. Announced on 20th day of January, 2011.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Kanwal Inder) Member ysc