SUZANEE VENGLET vs SINGAPORE AIRLINES

THIS action has come up for admission before us today. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant is called absent and no representation is made on his behalf.

WE perused the averments in the complaint and documents filed alongwith it. The following factors are getting revealed from such perusal. (1) The complainant alongwith her husband and two children boarded Flight SQ 113 of the opposite party from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore on 2nd September, 1998 and they were in transit to Madras and they took Flight SQ 410 (of the opposite party), from Changi (Singapore) to Madras on 2nd September, 1998. (2) It appears the complainant and her family booked their luggage consisting of four large suitcases directly to Madras at Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). (3) Whens she and her family arrived at Madras she was shocked to find that two of the suitcases bearing Tag No. 0618407560/62 were missing. (4) A complaint, it is said, had been lodged (property irregularity report BIR No. 14206) with the opposite party''s grounds staff at Chennai regarding the two missing suitcases. (5) After 4 days she was informed by the opposite party that one of the missing suitcases were traced and the other suitcase was unable to be traced.

Alleging the factors as above, she knocked at the doors of this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and claiming for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

The relief that is prayed for in the complaint is to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to compensate her for financial loss, to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering and to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards legal expenses incurred by her.

THE facts of the instant case do require the application of the provisions of the Carriage By Air Act, 1972. This Act contains two Schedules, namely the First Schedule and the Second Schedule. Both the Schedules contain certain rules. Chapter III of the First Schedule and Second Schedule deal with the liability of the Carrier. Either Rule 22(2) of Chapter III of First Schedule or Rule 22(2)(a) of Chapter III of the Second Schedule will be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Rule 22(2) of Chapter III of First Schedule prescribes that "In the carriage of registered luggage and of goods, the liability of the Carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogramme, unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the Carrier, a special declaration of the value at delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the Carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that that sum is greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery".

Rule 22(2)(a) of ChaPter III of Second Schedule Prescribes that "In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the liability of the Carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs Per kilogramme, unless the Passenger or consignor has made, at the time when the Package was handed over to the Carrier, a sPecial declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has Paid a suPPlementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the Carrier will be liable to Pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he Proves that that sum is greater than the Passenger''s or consignor''s actual interest in delivery at destination".

Section 6 of the Act Provides for conversion of francs. According to the said Section, "Any sum in francs mentioned in Rule 22 of the First Schedule or of the Second Schedule, as the case may be, shall, for the PurPose of any action against a Carrier, be converted into ruPees at the rate of exchange Prevailing on the date of which the amount of damages to be Paid by the Carrier is ascertained by the Court".

The Present Prevailing current rate Per franc is stated to be Rs. 6.37.

THE averments in the complaint as well as the documents filed alongwith it did not at all reveal that the complainant made any special declaration at the time of registration of the luggage and also paid the supplementary sum. In such state of affairs, whether Rule 22 of Chapter III of the First Schedule or the Second Schedule applies the complainant cannot get any amount by way of damages other than an amount quantified in a sum of 250 francs for the missing suitcase. That would come to (francs 250 x Rs. 6.37) = Rs. 1,592.50, rounded of at Rs. 1,593/-.

EVEN assuming that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Airways, the compensation that the complainant would be entitled to get from the opposite party for the loss of the missing suitcase cannot exceed Rs. 1,593/-. Further, even assuming that there is some sort of a mental agony and anguish as a consequence of the loss of the suitcase in the course of transit travel from Singapore to Madras, the amount to be awarded for such mental agony and anguish can be quantified only at a minimal level in the absence of particulars having been given. The complainant herself evaluated the mental agony only in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. She has also claimed legal expenses quantified in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. EVEN assuming for arguments sake that she is entitled to be paid the compensation as claimed quantified in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony and anguish and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for legal expenses and the loss sustained to her by the loss of the baggage which we have quantified from the Rule as stated above in a sum of Rs. 1,593/- cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The complaint is, therefore, returned to be presented before the District Forum having jurisdiction of course after amending the necessary and requisite paragraphs in the complaint. Time for representation before the competent District Forum is one month. The Registry is directed to return this complaint alongwith the documents filed forthwith of course after obtaining the necessary and requisite endorsement from the complainant. Complaint returned.