COL D K KAPUR Vs. KLM NORTHWEST AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Col. D.K. Kapur, the petitioner, is an ex-Army Officer and a senior citizen. He approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi ("the District Forum") with a complaint alleging various deficiencies in service on the part of the KLM Northwest Airlines (opposite party-OP before the District Forum and respondent before us) during his air journey from Delhi to Seattle, USA via Detroit and claiming compensation. After considering the pleadings, evidence and documents produced before it and hearing the parties, the District Forum found the OP guilty of deficiency in service, viz., inexplicable delay and consequent harassment, in delivery of the complainant/petitioner's baggage at Detroit, USA and directed the latter to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000 and costs of Rs.10,000 within 30 days of its order. Dissatisfied, the complainant appealed against the order of the District Forum to the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ("the State Commission"). By its order dated 8.9.2009, the State Commission confirmed the findings and award of the District Forum. Still unhappy, Col. Kapur has come up with this revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act") for enhancement of the compensation, etc., awarded to him. The OP Airlines has, however, not challenged the order of the Fora below.

(2.) I have heard Col. Kapur and Mr. A.S. Pasrich, Advocate on behalf of the OP/respondent Airlines and carefully considered the orders of the Fora below as well as the material produced before them.

(3.) (i) The principal allegations of Col. Kapur related to a long delay in the departure and ultimate cancellation of the Airlines' flight on which he was hooked for his journey Delhi- Amsterdam-Seattle on 24th July, 2006; the inconveniences that he underwent at the Hotel Grand, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi where he and other passengers of this flight were put up by the Airlines till the departure of the Airlines next flight (inconveniences like the lights in the Hotel room not working and the Hotel not being prepared to offer him even a cup of tea unless he paid for it, the latter forcing him to go hungry and hence go home at his own cost); he was ultimately given a boarding pass for a journey Delhi-Amsterdam-Detroit-Seattle as against the original routing of Delhi- Amsterdam-Seattle; the flight Detroit-Seattle was a low grade, cheap domestic flight on which he was not served any refreshment as he should have been for an international journey for which he had paid; one of his checked-in pieces of baggage went missing at Detroit to search which he had to spend hours and as a result he could not catch the originally scheduled Detroit-Seattle flight; in his search of his missing baggage at Detroit, no staff of the Airlines helped him; and, finally, when he reached Seattle, his missing baggage could be located only after a three-hour long frantic search by his son, without the assistance of any Airlines staff, because it had been sent by a Detroit-Seattle flight different from his. (ii) During the hearing, Col. Kapur's main arguments in support of his claim for enhanced compensation were two-fold: first, the limits of liability of the respondent Airlines for delayed