AIR INDIA Vs. SUGANDA RAVI MASHELKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner - Air India has come in revision against the order dated 24th of December, 1991 in Appeal No. 32 of 1991 of the State Commission. By its order of 24th December, 1991 the State Commission of Goa bad dismissed. The appeal of the Revision Petitioner against the order of the District Forum, Panaji whereby the District Forum had awarded a compensation of Rs. 75,000.00 to the Respondent - Complainant for loss of her luggage by the Air Carrier.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the Respondent - Complainant had booked certain unaccompanied baggage on the 28th of July, 1990 for transportation from Kuwait to Goa. The Respondent-Complainant herself flew from Kuwait to Goa on the 1st of August, 1990. After arrival in India the Respondent - Complainant could not retrieve her unaccompanied baggage. Eventually, therefore, the District Forum directed the Revision Petitioner to return the goods entrusted to them, or, in the alternative, to pay Rs. 75,000.00 as compensation. Before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner challenged the order of the District Forum on the ground that the Revision Petitioner - Air India was not responsible for the loss and was absolved from any liability for its failure to deliver the goods by virtue of Section 20 of the Indian Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Section 20 of the said Act reads as under

(3.) The State Commission held that the Revision Petitioner, who was the Respondent before the District Forum, bad through letters only asked for extension of time to find out the papers concerning transportation of the baggage which they could not trace out due to Gulf War. The State Commission, therefore, took the view that the Carrier bad not discharged its own proving that he and his servants or agents have. taken all necessary measures to avoid damage etc. to the baggage. The State Commission observed that "In our view, it (Gulf War) cannot be said to be the necessary measure or exhibited any impossibility to avoid loss of the Complainant in tracing out her luggage. The explanation coming from Respondent about the inability to trace the luggage is not satisfactory and convincing. Thus the statutory burden has not been discharged by the Respondent."