S KUMAR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.5.90 of the District Forum in case No.1732/89, S. Kumar, President Society for Civic Rights V/s. Managing Director, Air India. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint and held the view that the complainant was not entitled to refund of 100, paid towards excess baggage for journey from London to Delhi.

(2.) The case of the appellant, complainant in the District Forum, is that the complainant is President of Society of Civic Rights which is recognised as a "registered Consumer Association" by the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India, and he travelled to Canada on ticket No.3462907165 issued on 24.6.85 by Air Canada for Canadian dollors 1507 for his journey from Delhi to Charlotte Town, Canada and back. The ticket issued by Air Canada provided piece concept of baggage throughout the journey both ways. This meant that the complainant could carry two pieces of baggage of set dimensions irrespective of weight. The ticket also provided that the complainant would travel on Air India between London and Delhi on his return journey. The complainant commenced his journey from Delhi on 13.7.85 for Canada. His return journey from Canada started on 28.7.85. He broke his journey at London for a few days and returned from London by Air India. When the complainant came to the airport to catch his flight for Delhi on 31.7.85 the checking staff of Air India found that he had excess baggage of 10 kg and he had to pay 100 towards this baggage. He was issued an excess baggage ticket No.098 4510336634 dated 31.7.85. The complainant argued with the duty staff of Air India at the airport that into case the piece concept of baggage was applicable as provided for in his ticket and not the weight concept. He also contended that the excess charge collected by Air India at the airport was contrary to the terms and conditions of the ticket issued to him. He further averred that the terms and conditions of his ticket could not be altered to his disadvantage and the airline was bound to give due notice to him before doing so. He also contended that he was given no opportunity to lighten his load and to remove some articles of his excess baggage from suitcases and carry it as hand baggage. He further stated that while argument were going on, the check-in-staff of Air India pressed the button of the conveyer belt and pushed ahead the baggage of the appellant.

(3.) The appellant had claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss and injury suffered by him, a refund of 100 which he had to pay on account of excess baggage and interest on this amount. He had contended that he faced a lot of humiliation as he had to borrow 100 from a friend at the airport in order to pay for the excess baggage.