SUSANT KUMAR BARAL vs INDIAN AIRLINES

AN interesting question that arises for consideration in this complaint is whether in the event of loss of a registered baggage, the liability of the Indian Airlines is only restricted to the amount mentioned in the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and Regulation framed thereunder. In other words, is the passenger not entitled to any compensation on the ground of mental agony, etc.?

THE case of the complainant is that he is a faculty member in the Department of Business Administration. Berhampur University, Berhampur in the State of Orissa and has been teaching at Post Graduate level for the last 13 years in Business Administration. He was invited to attend and present his research findings in the 11th PACAP/FMA Finance and Banking Conference at Singapore during 8-10 July, 1999. He accordingly decided to go to Singapore to attend the conference. He purchased a ticket (Kolkata-Singapore-Kolkata) from Sita World Travels India Private Limited, Bhubaneswar - opposite party No. 6 for his journey to Singapore on 6.7.1999 from Kolkata in Flight-IC 7272 being run by opposite parties 1 to 5. After he checked in at Kolkata Airport on 6.7.1999, his suitcase was shifted to be sent in the cargo of the same flight. It carried the baggage No. UTN IC 013037. After landing in the Changi Airport, Singapore at about 11.30 p.m., when he went to collect his suitcase, to his utter surprise he did not find it. THEre was not a single member of the Indian Airlines staff who could help him in locating the suitcase. THE "Lost and Found Section" of the Changi Airport was about to be closed and some person advised him to come next morning and report about the missing of the suitcase. He had for the first time landed in a foreign soil. He had no friend and relation in Singapore. He was perturbed and had to spend the night in the Airport without any food. In the next day morning i.e. 7.7.1999, some officers of the "Lost and Found Section" gave him telephone numbers of Indian Airlines office. On contacting over phone, one Ramdas, Airport Manager assured him that the suitcase would be found and requested him to wait for some time. In view of assurance, he was expecting that the suitcase would be found and he waited till 8.00 p.m. but without any success. His conference was to start on the next day i.e. 8.7.1999 morning. He had kept all his clothings and the computer floppy for presentation in the suitcase. He had only one dress which he had put on. He had kept some currency in the suitcase. He had with him only registration fee USD 400. As he had to attend the conference, he needed a suit, pant, shirt, tie and undergarments. He brought his plight to the notice of Ramdas and requested him for granting minimum amount for purchase of a dress. He, however, offered only 75 dollars. After getting that amount, he immediately rushed to the nearby market and bought a suit, shirt, tie and other necessary garments. THEreafter, he rushed to the venue of the conference. THE organizers of the conference permitted him to present his research paper and pay the registration fee after reaching India. As the computer floppy was lost along with the suitcase, his presentation of paper in the conference was not to the mark. 10.7.1999 was the last day of the conference and the flight reservation to Kolkata was next day morning. But he had to stay back on 11.7.1999 to settle the matter. Ramdas refused his request to return to India via Madras as the next flight to Kolkata was on 14.7.1999 although he was prepared to pay the differential amount. He was forced to extend his journey till 14.7.1999 in the Singapore -Kolkata flight. He had to stay three days more for no fault of his. At Singapore Airport, the complainant gave application for compensation to Ramdas on 14.7.1999 who promised that it would be examined. As no decision was taken in the matter he had no other way than to file the complaint. In their written version, the Indian Airlines Authorities did not dispute about the loss of the suitcase. Their contention is that if the complainant thought that the computer floppy was important for him, he could have carried the same by hand. Under the Regulations the Indian Airlines'' liability for loss of baggage is limited to USD 20 per kg. The weight of missing bag was 12 kgs. and as such the complainant is entitled to only USD 240 for the loss of the baggage. Regarding his overstay at Singapore they pleaded that the complainant stayed back for his own interest to claim compensation.

It is an admitted fact that the suitcase of the complainant was lost at the hands of the Indian Airlines. No reason or explanation is forthcoming from them for the loss of the suitcase at Singapore Airport. They were obliged to hand over it to the complainant on his arrival. Their failure in this regard amounts to deficiency in service.

THE Carriage by Air Act, 1972 deals with liability of the carrier for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, or of damage to, any registered baggage. THE Indian Airlines have made a set of Regulations called International Carriage (Passenger and Baggage) Regulations, 1973. Regulation 2 states that conditions of contract shall apply to international carriage by air (passengers and baggage) performed by the Indian Airlines in terms of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Regulation 4(d) provides that any liability of carrier is limited to 250 French gold francs or its equivalent per kg. in case of checked baggage. Basing on the above regulations, it is contended that the complainant would be entitled to USD 240 only for the loss of the baggage. The moot question is : Cannot a passenger claim compensation on the ground of mental agony, sufferings , etc. following the loss or damage to his registered baggage. Chapter 3 of the Second Schedule contained in the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 provides that the limits of liability prescribed in Rule 22 shall not prevent the Court from awarding in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the Court costs and of other expenses of the litigation incurred by the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience the relevant Rule 22(4) is extracted hereunder: "The limits prescribed in this rule shall not prevent the Court from awarding in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the Court costs and of the other expenses of the litigation incurred by the plaintiff. The foregoing provision shall not apply if the amount of the damages awarded, excluding Court costs and other expenses of the litigation, does not exceed the sum which the carrier has offered in writing to the plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence causing the damage, or before the commencement of the action, if that is later."

FROM the above, it may be seen that the Court is not debarred from awarding compensatory damages to a passenger for sufferings and mental agony under common law. In law the injured party is entitled to claim reasonable compensation for sufferings and mental agony. A Court or Forum quantifies damage on sound principles. A person is entitled to receive compensation for any loss or damage which arose naturally from the event. In estimating the actual loss the Court or Forum takes into account only such loss as may be fairly and reasonably considered to have arisen naturally and in usual course of things from the violation of obligation. In the case at hand, the sufferings and mental agony through which the complainant spent on a foreign soil following the loss of the suitcase can well be imagined. He had no friend or acquaintance at Singapore. Although he was to come back in the Kolkata-bound flight on 11.7.1999 he could not come as he expected that his grievance would be favourably considered by the Indian Airlines Authorities. But it was in vain. As there was no Kolkata-bound flight from Singapore till 14.7.1999 he requested Ramdas to accommodate him in any Madras-bound flight and was agreeable to pay the differential amount. His request was not considered. He was thus forced to stay back at Singapore for three days. The complainant is a Senior Member of the teaching staff of a University. He has standing and prestige in the society and had to go through the tribulations for no fault of his. Whatever money he had in his pocket he spent at Singapore and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are inclined to hold that he was subjected to sufferings, mental agony and hardship. His sufferings cannot be measured by money. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold opposite parties 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) as compensation, damage along with USD 240 for the loss of the baggage and direct them to pay the entire amount to the complainant by end of October 2007 failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from 6.7.1999. The complaint is allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000. Complaint allowed.