MANICKAM @ MRS. SIVABAGIAM vs AIR LANKA LIMITED

THE complainant travelled from Sri Lanka by a morning flight of the 1st opposite party Air Lanka Limited to Madras on 15.2.1997 and reached Madras at 10.30 a.m. THEre she found her luggage of one piece missing. When enquired she was informed that the luggage had not come. According to the complainant, she could bring only one piece of luggage as she was aged and unwell and was being moved only by a wheel chair. On 16.2.1997 also when she went to the Airport for her luggage she was informed that it had not come. Again on 17.2.1997 she was informed at the Airport that the luggage had not come still. At the Air Lanka office, Mount Road, on 18.2.1997 she was given a sum of Rs. 1,250/-. Her visit to Air Lanka office at Cathedral Road was of no avail. Later, on 19.2.1997 she was informed that her luggage had arrived. On 20.2.1997 she went to the Airport and after a lot of waiting and moving about she got her luggage. She was a diabetic, heart and rheumatic patient. Her prescriptions and medicines were all inside the baggage and since they were not available for use for the said 5 days she suffered a lot. She was accommodated in the house of her Lawyer which was to his inconvenience. She had only one dress apart from the dress she was wearing. Because of the late arrival of the baggage she had no other dress to wear. She sold her bangles and with the money so obtained she purchased three sets of sarees, three blouses and three petticoats spending Rs. 4,000/-. For going to the Airport on the said days, she spent a sum of Rs. 2,400/-. Her appointments with Doctors were all cancelled. She had got all her money in her baggage. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint has been filed claiming various sums of compensation under different heads all totalling to Rs. 5,25,000/-.

NOW in the written version filed by the 1st opposite party Air Lanka Limited, it is contended that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint since the alleged cause of action had arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Commission and the principal office of the opposite party is also situated outside the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is further contended that the reasons for the complainant''s baggage to have been left at Colombo was due to the fact that the baggage tag fastened in the bag had come off before it reached the loading point. The complainant was paid a sum equivalent to USD 70 under two receipts dated 17th and 21st February, 1998. Even at the beginning at the Madras Airport the complainant was informed that steps would be taken to trace out her baggage and to inform her and therefore there was no necessity for the complainant to make various trips to the Airport as alleged. As soon as the baggage was received at Colombo the complainant was informed. This opposite party has denied the various averments made in the complaint. They further contend that under Section 22 of the Carriage of Goods by Air Act and the terms and conditions of the carrier the liability of the carrier is restricted to USD 20 per kg. The 2nd opposite party Union of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation has remained ex-parte.

The points that arise for determination are whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so what relief can be granted to the complainant ?

IT is common case that the 1st opposite party Air Lanka was to carry the baggage of the complainant from Colombo to Madras on 15.2.1997 but the baggage was delivered to the complainant only on 21.2.1997 after a delay of 5 days. The reason for the delay according to the 1st opposite party is that before loading the baggage at Colombo the baggage tag fastened to the baggage had come off. This shows that because of the deficiency in service in not properly fastening the baggage tag the delay had occurred and this clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. It is indisputable that the 1st opposite party is liable to pay compensation. The question is what would be the quantum of compensation. According to the complainant as stated in the complaint itself, she has received a sum of Rs. 1,250/- from the 1st opposite party on 17.2.1997. But the 1st opposite party would contend that they had paid a sum equivalent to USD 70 under two receipts dated 17th and 21st February, 1997. They have also filed the said two receipts as Exs. B-1 and B-2. A look at these receipts shows that the complainant had signed in them. Each receipt is for Rs. 1,250/-. It is therefore clear that the 1st opposite party had paid a total sum of Rs. 2,500/-. Now, it is not a case of non-delivery of the baggage or damage to the baggage. It is a simple case of delay of 5 days in delivery of the baggage. There is no evidence as to what the luggage contained. However the complainant had averred that she had kept all her clothing, medicines and prescriptions in it. According to her she suffered for want of clothing and medicines for five days. She claims to be a diabetic, heart and rheumatic patient. For her old age and diseases, the opposite parties are not responsible. No doubt, for want of clothing, she should have suffered inconvenience. Being aged, it is quite possible she was a patient suffering from diabetic, her ailment and rheumaticism and because of deprivation of the medicines and prescriptions she would have suffered a lot. For all these, in our view, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- can be ordered to be paid as compensation over and above the sum of Rs. 2,500/- already paid to her. She would seem to say that she had kept her money in the baggage and therefore she had to request her Lawyer to accommodate her in his house. But as regards this there is no evidence. It is difficult to believe that she had kept her money also in the said baggage and not with her during the journey. As regards the alleged expenditure for food and other things, that was for her own consumption and use and therefore there is no point in asking for reimbursement. As to her alleged daily trips to Airport in taxi, there is no evidence.

IN the result, we pass an award directing the 1st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. They shall also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost of this complaint. These amounts shall be paid within one month from today. Complaint disposed of.