AIR INDIA LIMITED Vs. ARVIND PANDALAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party, there is challenge to order dated 21.5.2008 passed by State Commission, Delhi (for short, 'State Commission') in (First Appeal No. 08/450).

(2.) Brief facts are, that Respondent No.1/Complainant No.1 is Chairman-cum-Managing Director of State Trading Corporation of India, whereas Respondent No.2/Complainant No.2 is his wife. On 5.6.2007, respondent no.1 along with his wife left for United Kingdom on official visit. They returned to India on 16.06.2007 travelling on Air India Flight No. AII20/16th June, 2007. The flight arrived at IGI Airport at Delhi and respondents were waiting for their luggage which was to be off loaded from the plane. They were shocked to learn that their luggage did not come. Respondents immediately approached staff of the petitioner and enquired about their luggage. They were told by the petitioner's that probably their luggage has been left behind at the airport at United Kingdom and it will reach New Delhi within a short span of time. It is stated that respondents prepared list of the articles of the luggage under the "Heading of Property Irregularity Report". The value/cost of the goods in the suit-case belonging to respondent no.1, was Rs.1,72,400/- and goods belonging to respondent no.2 was Rs.2,07,180/-. Respondents were made to run from pillar to post despite that, there was no clue of their luggage. Thus, respondents filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs.3,79,580/- as the cost of wearing apparels and suitcases, Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, torture and harassment and Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation.

(3.) Petitioner in its reply has stated that respondents are not 'Consumer' within the ambit and scope of the Act. Respondent No.1 is Chairman-Managing Director of a public sector undertaking and is taking undue advantage of his position and has claimed an exorbitant amount. Respondents in 'Customs Form for Clearance of Mishandled Baggage', which was duly signed by respondent no.2, had declared the value of goods as Rs.50,000/- only. It is further stated that respondents have failed to substantiate their claim with respect to apparels which claimed to be brand new, by not furnishing their invoices/bills. The valuable items like watches, jewellery, cash, documents, electronic items etc. are tariff restricted items and do not form part of checked in baggage and should remain in the custody of the passenger. Persons carrying high value baggage declare in advance, the value of such luggage and pay valuation charges and have to take proper insurance cover. Unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional valuation charges are paid, claims with regard to lost/mishandled baggage are made on the laid-down on the terms and conditions as per Warsaw Convention i.e. @USD 20/Kg. or value of the invoice, whichever is less. The respondents have not declared higher value in advance and also not paid the additional valuation charges. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim any compensation. Petitioner had issued cheque bearing no. 983298 dated 23.07.2007, in favour of respondent no.2 for Rs.32,000/-, the then equivalent value in rupees of USD 800(40 Kg x USD 20) but she returned the aforesaid cheque. The respondent did not off load the baggage, as the same was not handed over by the connecting flight of British Midland, perhaps due to paucity of time between arrival of British Midland flight Dublin and departure of receiving airline i.e. petitioner from London. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. There is not slightest deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.