M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The unsuccessful claimant before the lower forum to her satisfaction is the appellant.
(2.) The appellant/complainant is a senior lecturer in nutrition having 13 years experience. By taking effective steps she attended 16th International Conference on Nutrition held in Montreal, Canada between 27.7.97 and 11.8.97. On invitation in order to attend the said conference, she traveled in ticket bearing No.098:4417351 flight No.189 owned and operated by the respondents/ opposite parties from Bombay to Toronto via London. The study materials, dresses, jewelleries were taken by her in VIP suitcase which was booked as baggage at Bombay while boarding the aircraft. After landing at Toronto on 27.7.97 to her shock she found the suitcase was missing. Without the materials and dresses, she was constrained to stay at Montreal and compelled to attend the conference also thereby she suffered not only loss but also mental agony, including humiliation. Her complaint at Toronto Airport also not yielded any effective result in tracing out the suitcase. Thereafter the complainant came to India on 11.8.97 and addressed a letter for necessary action, which also failed to yield any positive result. Because of the indifferent attitude and willful negligence to avoid the compensation when claims were made, false replies were issued. Issuance of lawyers notice also not properly attended compensating the loss incurred by the complainant. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not delivering the baggage to the complainant at Toronto, amounted to willful misconduct. The visit of the complainant from Madras to Montreal and from Montreal to Madras had become purposeless and meaningless and the amount spent for the stay and for the deficiency in service, the respondents have to pay totally a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in addition to a sum of Rs.62,055/- with interest. On the above pleadings as if there was deficiency in service and negligence etc. a claim was made by the appellant.
(3.) The opposite parties / respondents denying all the allegations in the complaint would state that the missing baggage was located at Mumbai subsequently and the same was informed to the complainant requesting her to restore the baggage during her transit in Mumbai after identification. When a report was given at Toronto, the complainant was assured an reimbursement of CAD 100 as interim relief, which was not accepted by the complainant and therefore the offer was revised to USD 260, as per the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which restricts the liability. This offer was also not accepted by the complainant.;