MANAGING DIRECTOR, AIR INDIA LTD. vs K.A.NARAYAN

THESE two appeals were heard together and were disposed of by this common order.

BOTH the complainants are professors and doctors in Jipmer Hospital. They travelled by Air India to attend a conference in Cairo. The travel was by direct flight from Madras to Rome by Air India and then from Rome to Cairo by Alitalia. For the whole travel the tickets were issued by the second opposite party through the first opposite party. When the complainants landed at Cairo they found that their baggage did not accompany them. They landed in Cairo on 22.10.1994 and on 24.10.1994 Alitalia paid them 50$ towards first need expenses and the baggage was handed over to them only on 27.10.1994. The case of the complainants was that they had to attend a Scientific Conference and that they were very much inconvenienced by the delay in delivery of baggage. Accordingly each of them approached the District Forum with the following prayers : (a) to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and exemplary damages for the loss of active participation in the international conference, mental agony, physical suffering and hardship undergone by the complainant; (b) to direct the opposite parties to refund the ticket amount of Rs. 68,099/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase of the ticket till the date of realisation to the complainant; (c) direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the complaint.

The opposite parties disputed the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum and on merits contended that the baggage was delivered intact, that there was no negligence on their part and that they were not liable for injury or loss, if any.

The District Forum after hearing the parties found that it had jurisdiction, dismissed the claim for the return of the air ticket and awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the complainants payable by the second opposite party. No order was passed against the third opposite party since he was only the Manager of the second opposite party. However the appeal was filed by the second and third opposite parties.

THE learned Counsel for the appellants did not press before us the objection regarding jurisdiction. THE appellants'' first ground is that there is no liability for the Airlines arising out of late arrival of luggage as per the conditions of carriage. In support of this ground, the appellants would rely on Clause 09 of the conditions of carriage printed in the ticket jacket and argue that the late arrival of luggage does not create any liability. We shall examine this contention. It is well established that printed clauses are valid only if it is proved that they have been brought to the notice of the consumer, or if they are such as any reasonable man would subscribe to it. In this case it is not even alleged that the clause has been brought to the notice of the complainants before they purchase the tickets, or at the time of being issued tickets. On the other side, air passengers are moving quickly from one place to another, and sometime stay in a place only for about a week or so. THErefore no reasonable man will accept a part of the contract, the fact of late arrival of baggage. So late arrival of baggage is clearly a deficiency of service. The second ground relates to the quantum of compensation. It is contended that the complainants have not proved any specific loss or damage; that the Airlines were ready to compensate any loss or damage, upon proof by the complainants, by way of vouchers, bills or receipts; and that the complainants had already been paid a compensation of 50 $.

IT was argued by the complainants that they were medical professors engaged in the teaching of medicine and attended an International Scientific Conference on Population at Cairo. They have stated in the complaint that apart from their research papers they were deprived of proper dress to wear and also were put to inconvenience due to lack of other items. They wanted us to appreciate that a person being in a foreign country and participating in a prestigious international conference will have to incur a lot of expenses if the baggage containing their clothes and other necessaries is not delivered to them. We shall examine how this question of damages should be appreciated. The opposite parties do not have a system of liquidated damages per bag and per day of delay in the delivery of baggage which would simplify the matter. As unliquidated damages, the complainants would be entitled to special damages viz., for actual damages sustained only if the other party could have anticipated the value of the injury, by the complainants informing the Airlines about the exact content. This did not happen, and therefore the complainants are not entitled to special damages. They are entitled only to general damages, viz., damages which is presumed to follow in such cases. Such damages will be the same for all passengers, whatever their status, their purpose of travel and the content of the baggage. No proof of the quantum of damages will have to be adduced. If we look at the matter with those well established principles and we take into account the delay of five days in delivering the baggage we find that in the consumer protection perspective the grant of a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- over and above 50$ already paid by Alitalia to each complainant is proper.

IN the result, both the appeals are dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/- on each of the appeals. Appeals dismissed with costs.