BEFORE
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL DISTRICT FORUM AT BOMBAYORIGINAL
COMPLAINT NO. OF 1999.XYZ
& & ComplainantVersusArctic
Airways & Opposite PartyINDEXSR
NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.1. Original Complaint
1-52. Ex. A copy of the
damaged memo 6-73. Ex. B complaint dated
26/6/1999 84. Ex. C letter dated
29/6/1999 from the Complainant to opposite party 9-105. Ex. D reply dated
2/7/1999 from the opposite party to complainant 116. Ex. E reply dated
9/7/1999 from the opposite party to complainant 127. Ex. F Advocates
notice dated 24/8/1999 And acknowledgment 13-168. Ex. G Particular of
claim 179. Vakalatnama 18BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
DISTRICT FORUM AT BOMBAYORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. OF 1999.Mr.
XYZ,18,
Raza Bldg.,R.M
Road, Mumbai 400 024. & ComplainantVersusArctic
Airways,Mumbai
Airport Terminal II ASahar,
Mumbai 400 099. & Opposite PartyThis
complaint under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is
presented on the grounds stated herein under:-1. That the Complainant
is a diamond merchant and frequently travels out of India for business
commitments and the Arctic Airways, the Opposite Party abovenamed, is a
scheduled Airline operating flights to and from India and having its office at
the address given in the title above.2. That the Complainant
on 19/6/1999 travelled from London to Mumbai by Arctic Airways by flight No.BA
174 and carrier flight No.BA 139. When the Complainant reached Mumbai Airport,
he found that his baggage included suitcase bearing carrier-bag tag No.DA
649098, brand name UNK had major damages and inter-alia following articles were
lost from the said suitcase viz.i.
One
suit costing 34,950 Belgium Frankii.
Two
sarees costing US $ 100 eachiii.
Two
jeans costing US $ 90 each and,iv.
Other
articles The above articles totally weighed 12 kgs and the net value of the
above lost articles was Rs.1,48,463/-.Ex.A3. The Complainant
immediately informed the Opposite Party at the Sahar Airport, Mumbai about the
said loss articles. The said representative inspected the damaged suitcase and
issued memo for damaged articles duly filled after the inspection wherein the
damage has been shown as the major damage. The Opposite Partys representative
at the Airport informed the Complainant that the Complainant would be
compensated for the said loss of articles. Hereto annexed and marked as Ex.A is
the copy the above memo.4. The Complainant
thereafter visited the Opposite Party twice or thrice when he was informed that
he had to give written complaint for the above loss.EX.
B5.
The
Complainant on 28/6/1999 forwarded the written complaint dated 26/6/1999 to the
Opposite Party. The Opposite Party asked the Complainant to produce the bills
for the purchase of the said lost articles. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit
"B"is the copy of the said complaint dated 26/6/1999.EX.C6.
Accordingly
by a letter dated 29/6/1999, the Complainant submitted the bill for the
purchase of the suit and also informed the Opposite Party that sarees and jeans
were purchased on cash payment from New York and the bills for the said sarees
and jeans have been lost with the above articles. Hereto annexed and marked as
Exhibit "C"is the copy of the said letter dated 29/6/1999.EX.D7.
The
Complainant states that by a reply dated 2/7/1999 the opposite party informed
the complainant that they were liable for only the missing 12 kgs of the
articles and were ready to reimburse the complainant US$240/-. The complainant
did not accede to the said offer as it was much less then the value of the lost
articles. Hereto annexed and marked as Ex.`D"is the copy of the above
reply dated 2/7/1999.EX.F8.
The
Complainant states that again by a letter dated 9th July 1999 (the date is
wrongly mentioned as 09 June 1999 in the said letter), the opposite party
expressed their inability to pay the amount claimed by the complainant and
reiterated that they were unable to better their offer of USD 240/-. Hereto
annexed and marked as Ex.`Eis the copy of the above letter dated 9th July
did not accede to the complainants request, the complainant by an advocates
notice dated 24th August 1999 called upon the Opposite Party to pay the loss
suffered by the Complainant within 7 days of the receipt of the said notice.
The said notice was duly received by the Opposite Party but neither they paid
the above amount to the complainant nor replied to the said notice. Hereto
annexed and marked as Ex. `Fis the copy of the above notice and its
acknowledgment.10. The Complainant
states that the amount offered by the opposite party for the loss of above
articles is much less then the actual amount of the lost articles. The opposite
party is responsible for the compensation of the lost articles according to the
claims made by the complainant. The opposite party ought to have taken
sufficient and adequate steps to avoid the loss due to its negligence and
inefficiency. The opposite party is negligent in handling the above baggages of
the Complainant. Because of the negligence of the Opposite Party, the
Complainant has lost the above articles from his suitcase. All the articles,
which are carried by the passengers with them, are kept in the custody of the
crew members of the flight and the said crew members are duty bound to handle
with care the above articles. If any articles are lost and/or damaged during
the travel by Air flight, then the negligence can be imputed on the part of the
Airlines. In the above case the Complainant had trusted his baggage with the
Airlines during his travel from London to Mumbai and the said baggage had been
damaged during the travel. The Airlines did not handle the said baggage with
due care and therefore they are negligent in handling the said baggage and
therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.11.Ex.GThe
total claim of the Complainant is Rs. 2,18,463/- as per the particulars of the
claim annexed hereto as Ex.`Gwhich is less than Rs.5 lacs and the cause of
action arises in Andheri, Mumbai, hence the district forum has the jurisdiction
to try and entertain this complaint. The complainant when arrived at the Mumbai
airport he came to know about the lost articles. The complaint about the said
loss articles was made at Mumbai to the opposite party and the opposite party
made the offer for compensation from their office at Mumbai. Therefore, this
forum has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.12. The complainant has
not filed any complainant having the same cause of action in any other forum or
court.13. The claim in the
complaint is not barred by the law of limitation.In the circumstances, the
Complainant therefore prays that:a. the opposite party be
directed to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs. 1,48,463/- being a loss
incurred by the Complainant on account of the negligence and inefficiency of
the opposite party:b. the Opposite Party be
directed to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs. 20,000/- being the cost of
the legal expenses borne by the Complainant;c. the opposite party be
directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.50,000/- being the cost of the
visiting the opposite party, phone calls, follow up and mental agony and
harassment suffered by the Complainant due to negligence and deficiency in
service by the opposite party.d. any other relief
deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Dated this day of
December 1999 Advocate for the Complainant ComplaintVERIFICATIONI,
XYZ of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant the complainant abovenamed carrying on
business at 18, Raza Bldg., R.M Road, Mumbai -- 400 024 do hereby solemnly
declare and state that what is stated in paragraphs no.1 to 10 of the above
complaint is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in the remaining
paragraphs is stated on information and belief and I believe the same to be
true.Solemnly
declared at Mumbai )this
day of December 1999 )Before
meAdvocate
for the ComplainantBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALDISTRICT FORUM AT BOMBAYORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. OF 1999.XYZ
& & ComplainantVersusArctic
Airways & Opposite PartyPARTICULARS OF CLAIMS1.
Loss
of Articlesa. Two Sarees costing US
$ 100 eachb. Two jeans costing US
$ 90 eachc. Other articles2.
Cost
of damaged Suit case brand UNK 34,950 Belgium Frank In Rupees : 1,48,463/-3.
Cost
for visiting the opposite party, phone calls, mental agony And harassment
Suffered by the complainant and time lost in the follow-up with the opposite
party In Rupees : 50,000/-4.
Legal
expenses In Rupees : 20,000/-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total
in Rupees : 2,18,463/-BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALDISTRICT FORUM AT BOMBAYORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. OF 1999.XYZ,18,
Raza Bldg.,R.M
Road, Mumbai 400 024. & ComplainantVersusArctic
AirwaysMumbai
Airport Terminal II ASahar,
Mumbai 400 099. & Opposite PartyVAKALATNAMAI,
XYZ, the complainant abovenamed do hereby appoint Mr. ABC to act, appear and
plead for me in the above matter.IN
WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have affixed my hands to this writing.Dated
this day of December 1999AcceptedComplainantADVOCATEN.B.
I am not the member of the Advocates welfare fundBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALDISTRICT FORUM AT BOMBAYCOMPLAINT
NO. OF 1999XYZ
& ComplainantVersusArctic
Airways&
Opposite Party-------------------------------------------------------------------------ORIGINAL COMPLAINT------------------------------------------------DATED
THIS DAY OF DEC.99ADVOCATE
FOR COMPLAINANT