KYRGYZSTAN AIRLINES vs RAMESH BEHL

IT is an appeal against the order dated 23.5.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts, stated in the complaint are that on 26.6.1999, the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had purchased one return ticket from M/s. Aero World Travels, 112, Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi-110001, Branch Office 201-Alfa Estate, 1st Floor, 39, G.T. Road, Jalandhar-144001 (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum hereinafter called opposite party No. 1), at Jalandhar for the flight from Delhi to Birmingham on 27.6.1999 through flight of appellant-opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter called opposite party No. 2) on payment of Rs. 18,000/-. On 27.6.1999 he had boarded the flight of opposite party No. 2 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and had handed over his baggage to the concerned persons of opposite party No. 2 and the concerned persons of opposite party No. 2 had issued Baggage Identification Tag. On reaching at Birmingham, the complainant had kept on waiting for his baggage for hours together but when he did not receive his baggage he had made complaint to the concerned Authorities of opposite party No. 2 at Birmingham Airport, who had informed him to come on 1.7.1999 for the enquiry about his baggage. The complainant was staying in U.K with his relative Mr. P.S. Bedi. He was received at Birmingham by one of his friends Shri Davinder Singh Dade. The complainant had very little amount in his pocket on 27.6.1999, when he had alighted from Aircraft of the opposite party No. 2 as all the money alongwith other articles were in his baggage, which was not delivered to him. It was then stated that the complainant due to these circumstances had to borrow $ 2000 for the purchase of necessary clothes, articles etc. for his daily use and to meet with the other expenditure. On 27.6.1999 after wasting couple of hours, the complainant had left the Birmingham Airport making complaints with regard to the non-receipt of his baggage. On 1.7.1999 he had come from Menchaster to Birmingham Airport as per promise of the concerned Authorities of opposite party No. 2 by bus of National Express by paying $ 12 (twelve pounds only). On reaching Birmingham Airport on 1.7.1999, the concerned Authorities had asked the complainant to come the next day i.e. on 2.7.1999. Then the complainant had again visited the concerned Authorities on 2.7.1999 and then the Authorities gave in writing to the complainant that the baggage of the complainant would be handed over to him at his local address by 4.7.1999 evening or on 5.7.1999 morning and after about eight days he had received his baggage. According to the complainant due to absence of his baggage, he had to purchase articles like woollen suits, shirts, underwear, vests socks, pair of shoes, sleeper, handkerchiefs, spectacles by spending $ 2000/-. Fruits and sweets, which were carried by the complainant as gifts for his friends and relatives were spoiled. Thus, according to the complainant this all happened due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2 in not delivering the baggage to him. According to the complainant, he had served a legal notice through his Counsel to opposite party No. 2 for which he had received the reply, but his claim had not been settled by opposite parties. The complainant had claimed Rs. 4 Lacs as damages for deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. On notice being given to the opposite parties, opposite party No. 1 in its written statement had admitted that the Air Ticket was purchased by the complainant through them. They had received legal notice from the Counsel for the complainant and had sent reply also. According to opposite party No. 1, they were only Passenger Sales Agent of opposite party No. 2 and they were authorised for only issuing tickets on their behalf. Handling of the baggage and providing of all other services to the passengers were done by the concerned Airlines. According to opposite party No. 1 only the concerned Airline was responsible if there was any deficiency in service in not delivering the baggage at the place of its destination. Deficiency was on the part of opposite party No. 2 and not on the part of opposite party No. 1. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

In the reply, which was filed by opposite party No. 2, preliminary objection was taken that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as they had their office at New Delhi and works for gain there. It was further stated that the present complaint was barred by limitation in terms of Condition No. 7 of the contract "checked baggage was to be delivered to the bearer of the baggage check." In case of delay, complaint could have filed within twenty-one days from the date of baggage was delivered. It was then stated in the reply that the complaint of the complainant was not in accordance with "notice of baggage liability limitations" as their liability limit was approximately US $ 20.00 per kilo for checked baggage and US $ 400.00 per passenger for unchecked baggage. It was then stated in the reply that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. On merits, it was stated that the complaint filed by the complainant was false and frivolous. It has not been denied that the complainant had not travelled in the flight. It was admitted that the baggage was not delivered to the complainant at destination rather it was stated that accidentally, the baggage of the complainant was sent back to Delhi instead of Birmingham from Bishkek and on detection of the mistake, the baggage was promptly shipped to Birmingham and delivered to the complainant on 5.7.1999. According to opposite party No. 2, the complainant had been taking undue advantage of the mistake on the part of opposite party and had tried to make deliberate attempt to mislead the Forum as the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions on which the ticket was sold to him, which had been specifically accepted by the complainant. According to opposite party the damages were highly speculative and were mere designs with a view to earn maximum monetary gain out of an accidental situation. It was prayed in the reply that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record, the District Forum allowed the complaint with costs and granted a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant from opposite party No. 2 for mental tension, harassment, inconvenience and financial loss for the purchase of new clothes and also Rs. 5,000/- was granted as costs of the complaint. Hence, this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.

PURCHASE of the Air Tickets from the opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1, the Travel Agent at Jalandhar for consideration by the complainant on 26.6.1999 is admitted. It also remains undisputed that on 27.6.1999 the complainant had boarded the flight and handed over his baggage and identification tag was issued to it, a copy of which is Exhibit C-3. It is also admitted that when the flight reached at Birmingham the baggage regarding which the identification tag Exhibit C-3 was issued by opposite party No. 2 was not delivered to the complainant. It has been specifically mentioned in the affidavit filed by the complainant before the District Forum that the said baggage contained his woollen clothes and some gift packets to be delivered to his friends and relatives. It also remains undisputed that the complainant had lodged a complaint regarding missing of the baggage and its non-delivery with the representative of opposite party No. 2 at Birmingham on the same day. Copy of the letter dated 2.7.1999 Exhibit C-5 reveals that the officials at the Birmingham Airport had intimated to the complainant that the baggage was checked in New Delhi on 27.6.1999 but was wrongly sent back to New Delhi instead of Birmingham from Bishkek and the concerned official had further informed to the complainant that baggage would be handed over to him at his local address by 4.7.1999 evening or on 5.7.1999 morning. The complainant had filed his affidavit before the District Forum stating therein that when he alighted from flight and baggage was not handed over to him he was left with no other clothes to wear and he had to borrow the money from his friend in order to purchase the necessary clothes in view of the non-delivery of the baggage to him at the Airport. He has given the details of the articles in his affidavit Annexure C-10 and has stated in that affidavit as well as in the complaint that he had purchased woollen suits, sets of underwears and vests, pair of shoes, handkerchiefs, gift packs, socks, sleeper and spectacles as all these articles were such which were absolutely necessary in accordance with the conditions and weather of that country as well as according to the status of the complainant. District Forum has rightly placed reliance on the affidavit of the complainant. The complainant is a Gazetted Officer working in the Labour Department of Government of Punjab. The version of the complainant is further corroborated by Sh. Devinder Singh Dade, his friend in his affidavit Ex. C-11 that when Sh. Ramesh Behl complainant reached on 27.6.1999 at Birmingham Airport in United Kingdom by the flight of opposite party No. 2 he had gone to receive him on that day when complainant could not get his baggage, there was hardly any amount in his pocket so he had borrowed 2,000 Pounds from him and with this borrowed money he had purchased suits, shirts, underwears, vests, spectacles and gifts etc.as detailed in the affidavit Annexure C-10. For getting the baggage the complainant had to get to the official of opposite party No. 2 from Manchester to Birmingham by bus by paying 12 Pounds of 1.7.1999. This fact is corroborated from Ex. C-4 which are the tickets issued by National Express. The factum of visit of the complainant to opposite party No. 2 at Birmingham is further corroborated from Ex. C-5 which is a letter written by their office in which it has been mentioned that regarding the baggage the complainant himself had come to their office and vide Ex. C-5 opposite party No. 2 had assured the complainant that the baggage would be handed over to him at his local address by 4.7.1999 evening or 5.7.1999 morning. It is thus, proved on the record that the baggage was delivered to the complainant after about 8 days.

THE act of opposite party No. 2 in delivering the baggage to the complainant after about 8 days is certainly an act of gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2. Mental agony and tension alleged to have been suffered by the complainant due to non-receipt of the baggage while alighting from the Air Flight particularly when he was left with only those clothes which he was wearing at that time could not be doubted. THEse circumstances clearly indicate that the complainant had suffered great mental agony and tension due to non-receipt of the baggage by him while alighting from the Air Flight at Birmingham.

QUESTION of territorial jurisdiction has also been rightly decided by the District Forum in favour of the complainant. In the case in hand, the ticket was purchased from opposite party No. 1 who are admittedly Passenger Sale Agent of opposite party No. 2 at Jalandhar. Part of cause of action thus, had arisen to the complainant at Jalandhar. Jalandhar District Consumer Forum had thus, the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The authority cited at the Bar,"1998 CTJ 470, J.P. Singh v. British Airways and Others" had rightly been distinguished by the District Forum as it was not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. The question of limitation of filing the complaint has also rightly been decided by the District Forum against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant. It has been rightly stated in its order by the District Forum that it was not the grouse of the complainant that his baggage had been damaged or it had been short supplied. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not delivering his baggage to him at the place of destination i.e. Birmingham Airport when he alighted from the flight.

The learned Counsel has also taken the objection that the weight of the baggage was about 15 kgs. and that in accordance with notice of baggage liability limitation. Opposite party was at the most liable to pay 20 dollars per kilogram for checked baggage and US dollar 400 per passenger for un-checked baggage. Thus, according to him opposite party was liable to pay at the most about Rs. 13,800/-. Again, argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is without any force as the complainant has stated above is not claiming the damage to the baggage only, rather he was claiming for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not delivering the baggage at the place of the destination when he alighted from the Birmingham and for mental agony and inconvenience etc. It is, thus, proved on the record that opposite party No. 2 was deficient in providing due service to the complainant. The complainant had to suffer great mental tension, inconvenience and harassment on the basis of non-receipt of his baggage at the destination. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. We entirely agree with the reasoning given by the District Froum in allowing the complaint. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.