A.Chakrabarti, President - (1.) THE brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant, a senior citizen, purchased e -Tickets for himself and his wife on 3.9.2007 from the agent of Emirates Airlines at a cost of Rs. 70,512 for a trip from Kolkata to Manchester via Dubai and back from Manchester to Kolkata via Dubai for visiting his daughter a resident of Lancashire for medical check up. The journey was scheduled on 24.9.2007. The complainant and his wife reached Manchester from Kolkata by the flight of the OPs 2 to 4 being flight No. EK 547 via Dubai. The return journey was scheduled on 30.3.2008 by the flight of the OP in flight No. EK 018 and from 31.1.2008 from Dubai to Kolkata by flight No. EK 546. The complainant made telephonic arrangements with Emirates London to ensure provision of a wheel chair at Manchester and Dubai Airports for the petitioner to prevent his physical discomfort as the time between the flight arriving in Dubai and the connecting flight from Dubai to Kolkata only 1 hour 45 minutes. The complainant's daughter explained everything to the Airlines Authority when the OP Emirates confirmed wheelchair services. Before the journey date the complainant's daughter again made a telephonic reconfirmation with the Emirates Airlines London when the Emirates Office reconfirmed. The flight from Manchester took off an hour late and on reaching Dubai the officials of OP informed the complainant that no wheelchair would be available for at least one hour and such information was given at the very last minute leaving only 45 minutes in complainant's hand to transit from one flight to the connecting flight which was not possible for the complainant and complainant missed the connecting flight from Dubai to Kolkata. As a result at Dubai the complainant was given a boarding pass of Emirates flight No. EK 506 upto Mumbai. The complainant was told that his luggage would accompany his flight upto Mumbai instead of Kolkata. Arriving at Mumbai International Airport the complainant found that his luggage containing medicines and medical advice did not arrive at Mumbai. The complainant was forced to board another plane of Jet Airways from Mumbai to Kolkata. The luggage of the complainant did not reach him at all. As no relief could be obtained in spite of repeated efforts by the complainants, this complaint was filed praying for Rs. 30 lacs as compensation. After the written version was filed and the parties adduced evidence followed by questionnaire and reply, the case was taken up for final hearing.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Shyamal Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the Complainant who contended that luggage of the complainant was finally lost and never reached the complainant and on demand the OPs offered only $ 600 although the contents and the suitcase itself were of much high value and even such insufficient amount was offered long after the loss of the luggage. Demand has been made by the complainant for further damage and compensation. The second contention of the complainant is that in spite of proper request and confirmation by the Airlines Authority, wheelchair was not provided to the complainant at Dubai Airport which resulted not only in physical inconvenience but also the connecting flight was missed particularly by reason of the fact that the flight reached Dubai late leaving a shorter time gap and in absence of the wheelchair the complainant could not reach in time to avail the flight. It is argued that the consequence of flight missing was not only harassment but the complainant was not provided with a ticket to a Kolkata bound flight but in a flight to Mumbai wherefrom the complainant was required to purchase his ticket for Kolkata from his own funds.
(3.) IN respect of loss of luggage for the fault of airlines, it is argued that fault stood admitted when damage of $ 600 was offered and such damage being insufficient a proper damage and compensation should be directed. In support of his contention the learned Advocate for the complainant relied on the judgments in the cases of Alok Tandon v. Scandinavian Airlines Systems reported in IV (2008) CPJ 357, Air France v. Sonali Arora reported in II (2008) CPJ 202 (NC); Subodh C. Gupta (Dr.) v. Scandinavian Airlines Systems reported in IV (2008) CPJ 48 and Air Decan (Decan Aviation Ltd.) v. Jyoti Swaroop Sharma reported in II (2009) CPJ 101. It is argued that in all those cases though goods were missing for a short while and ultimately reached the owner, huge compensation had been directed and in the case of the complainant in the present case the goods were lost finally and never could reach the complainant and, therefore, compensation of much higher quantum may be granted in favour of the complainant. With regard to not providing wheelchair service the complainant contended that he not only suffered physically being deprived of the wheelchair service but he missed the flight to Kolkata in which he was having a confirmed booking and he was again made to travel to Mumbai wherefrom he had to spend money and procure ticket for availing another flight from Mumbai to Kolkata. For the harassment and mental agony, compensation has been asked for. As regards the value of the lost articles the documents produced by the complainant having not been challenged by the OPs, the compensation has been prayed taking into consideration the said value. Baggage Inventory Report has been also relied upon. Mr. D. Ghosh, the learned Advocate for the Respondent argued that Sections 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 read with Rules 22 and 25 of the Rules framed under the said Act entitles the claimant for loss of goods @ 20 $ per kg. In the case of the complainant, it is argued that declared weight of the goods was 17 kg. but still for 20 kg. being the maximum weight for which payment was to be made in case of loss of goods, the total $ 400 was offered. On request of the complainant further $ 200 as compensation was offered as a goodwill gesture. Articles 8.3, 8.33 and 15.5.3 of the schedule to the Rules were referred to show the limited liability of the Airlines Authority in case of loss of articles. It is argued that while insisting on inconvenience due to missing medicines, etc. Rules are prevailing providing that such articles were not to be kept with the check in luggage. It is argued further that complainant never gave any declaration as regards special nature of the contents of the luggage which could entitle him to a larger damage. In this connection reference was made to judgment in the cases of Dr. S. Venkatesh v. Elal Israel Airlines reported in III (2000) CPJ 161; Mrs. Helen Wallia v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. reported in III (2002) CPJ 190 (NC)=2002 CCC 11 and The Manager, Air India Ltd. v. India Everbripht Shipping and Trading Company, reported in II (2001) CPJ 32 (NC). The learned Advocate also relied on the judgment in the case of Gargi Parsai v. K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines reported in I (1996) CPJ 2.;