ARJAN DASS vs ROYAL NEPAL AIRLINES

THE present appeal, filed by the appellants, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against order dated 24.10.2002, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), in Complaint Case No. OC/309/2000 entitled - Shri Arjan Dass & Ors. v. Royal Nepal Airlines, 44 Janpath, New Delhi. THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. THE appellants had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellants had travelled from Delhi Airport to Kathmandu (Nepal) on 2.5.1992 by Flight No. RA-218, operated by the respondent. It was stated that at the time of boarding the flight at Delhi, the appellants had handed over their baggage, consisting of 5 suitcases to the functionaries of the respondent for being transported from Delhi to Nepal. It was stated that, on their arrival at Kathmandu Airport, all the 5 suitcases, were found misplaced/lost and the concerned functionaries of the respondent had issued a property irregularity report (PIR) with the assurance that the baggage would be traced out and would be handed over to the appellants and in the event the same was not traceable, the price of the goods contained in those suitcases would be paid to the appellants as per instructions/rules. It was stated that the suitcases had not been traced out and the respondent also failed to pay the cost of the baggage. THE appellants filed a civil suit in the Civil Court at Batala, District Gurdaspur (Punjab) which was dismissed on the ground that Civil Court, Batala had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. THEreafter the appellants filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, New Delhi. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent the appellants prayed that compensation for the value of the goods contained in those 5 suitcases together with additional compensation @ $ 400 per person for unchecked baggage with interest @ 18% p.a. be awarded to the appellants to be paid by the respondent. THE appellants had also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony.

THE claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent, the respondent had taken certain preliminary objections. On merits it was stated that appellant Nos. 3 to 5 were not consumers within the meaning of the Act and that the appellants were in the habit of cheating and defrauding the airlines. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held the respondent guilty of deficiency in service and on the basis of the above findings has directed the respondent to pay a sum equivalent to $ 3000 in Indian currency. The learned District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellants as compensation and costs. The District Forum directed that the order be complied with by the O.P. within 60 days, failing which, the appellants would be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 27 of the Act.

Not satisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act before this Commission.

WE have heard Shri Arjan Dass, appellant No. 1, who has appeared before us for self and also on behalf of other co-appellants, at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments,the sole grievance, as stated by said Shri Arjan Dass, is that the learned District Forum has not awarded any interest on the compensation amount to the appellants. In our opinion, the above contention being advanced by said Shri Arjan Dass is devoid of substance because a ''consumer'' under the provisions of the Act cannot be awarded both interest as well as lump sum compensation. In our above views we stand fortified by a decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in case Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. P.R. Krishanan & Anr., reported as I (1995) CPJ 43 (NC)=1986-1996 CONSUMER 3234 (NS). The relief, given by the District Forum, vide impugned order, in the given facts, is just and adequate. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order which calls for no interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. No other point has been urged or pressed before us. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.