AIR INDIA LTD. Vs. SHAKEB KHAN ALTAMASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 26/9/2017 (as corrected on 20/12/2017) in First Appeal No. 299 of 2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the 'State Commission') dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dtd. 2/1/2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, Delhi (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint no. 688 of 2008. As per the impugned order, the appeal against order of the District Forum pertaining to claim of the respondent for Rs.9,24,000.00 towards value of lost garments by the petitioner and other damages and costs, was dismissed and order of the District Forum upheld.

(2.) The facts as per the petitioner are that the respondent/complainant travelled by a flight operated by the petitioner from Delhi to Bangkok (IC 853) on 3/9/2007. He checked in 100 kgs of baggage; however, its value was not declared. The ticket mentioned limited liability of USD 20 per baggage of lost baggage. The respondent was charged excess weight for 40 kg at the time of check-in, vide a valid receipt. Baggage was pooled with another co-passenger, Mohammad Salam and receipts were handed over to the respondent. On arrival in Bangkok, respondent reported non-receipt of all four pieces of checked in baggage and a Property Irregularity Report (PIR) was lodged. The baggage was not located by the petitioner despite earnest efforts. Petitioner states that the respondent had adequate information of the limited liability of baggage upto USD 20 as printed on the ticket as per the Warsaw Convention. Legal Notices dtd. 7/11/2007 and 21/2/2008 were received from the respondent which were duly replied. The Consumer Complaint filed before the District Forum by the respondent was contested and it was argued that the respondent complainant did not disclose that he was travelling with another co-passenger with whom luggage was pooled and that the respondent had also filed similar complaints of lost baggage with other airlines in the past. It was argued that the respondent and the said co-passenger, Mohd. Salam, changed their seats and Mohd. Salam also did not report any loss of baggage. A revised written submission was also filed detailing the discovery of previous complaints by the respondent. Replies to interrogatories were filed by the respondent though cross examination was not permitted. The District Forum allowed the complaint with compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs for deficiency in service and harassment with interest @ 9% based on a receipt alleged to have been issued by 'Air India', copy of which was not filed by the respondent with the complaint but was brought on record at the time of final arguments without notice or copy to the petitioner who had no opportunity to contest it. The appeal against the order of the District Forum which was admitted and stayed on deposit of the decretal amount was dismissed on contest.

(3.) This order is impugned by way of this revision petition on the ground that the order of the District Forum was illegal and based on material irregularity the District Forum's order dtd. 2/1/2013 was in violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on Prem Raj Vs. DLF Housing and Construction (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 1355 that conscious disregard of law amounts to acting without jurisdiction since in the instant case the statutory provisions of the Carriage By Air Act, 1972 and Sec. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been violated. It is contended that the lower fora committed a material irregularity in relying on documents which were never led in evidence and concluded that the respondent/complainant was a regular exporter of garments earning foreign exchange based upon documents submitted by him.