PATRICIA D'FURLONG vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, EAST WEST AIRLINES

THE complainant is resident of Ireland of Tallaght, Dublin. She and her husband boarded the aircraft of the opposite parties, and reached Visakhapatnam on 15.2.1994 to see her mother. At Visakhapatnam instead of three suitcases, only two were handed over to them and one was missing. THE complainant immediately reported the matter to the second opposite party at Visakhapatnam and the second opposite party promised to look into the matter. THE articles worth Rs. 4,400/- were kept in the suitcase which was lost. THE complainant, therefore, claimed damages of Rs. 1,75,000/- towards the value of the articles and Rs. 24,000/- towards compensation.

THE second opposite party filed its written version stating that only on 28.3.1994 the complainant met the second opposite party informing the loss of her baggage and the Manager of the second opposite party informed her that the complaint should have been made on that day itself, but not on a later date. THE complainant then submitted a letter on 10.4.1994 to the second opposite party addressed to the Deputy Managing Director, Bombay. THE opposite parties 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any damages. Basing on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said finding and order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

The point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?

THE case of the complainant is that she is residing at Ireland and she along with her husband came to Visakhapatnam to see her old mother by the flight of the opposite parties and reached Visakhapatnam on 15.2.1994 and that out of three suitcases only two were delivered to them and one was lost and that she complained to the second opposite party about missing of the baggage immediately and the second opposite party promised to trace it at the other end i.e., at Bombay. THE second opposite party on the other hand contends that on 15.2.1994 no complaint was given to him and only on 28.3.1994 the complainant orally informed him of the loss of the baggage and on 10.4.1994 a letter was delivered to him which was addressed to the Deputy Managing Director, Bombay. No report in writing was given to the second opposite party on 15.2.1994 as soon as the complainant noticed that her baggage was lost. Till 28.3.1994 no complaint was given to the opposite parties but an oral complaint was made to the second opposite party on 28.3.1994 and a letter was written on 10.4.1993 to the Deputy Managing Director, Bombay. Had the complainant lost her baggage she would have given the complaint on 15.2.1994 itself. As per Clause 5 of the regulations, no complaint can be entertained if it is not done immediately on termination of the journey. Clause 5 reads that receipt, without complaint, by registered baggage on termination of the journey shall be prima facie evidence that the baggage has been delivered correctly and in good condition. As the complainant has not made her claim immediately on termination of the journey, nor did she file the unaccompanied baggage token to show that missing item was not delivered, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for any loss sustained by the complainant. The District Forum has, therefore, rightly held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint.

WE find no merits in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. But in these circumstances, without any costs. Appeal dismissed.