SAHARA AIRLINES LTD Vs. JAYANT RATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / opposite party being aggrieved of the order of the dismissal of his first appeal against the order of the District Forum Cuttack has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent / complainant is a Doctor. On 13.03.2007, respondent travelled from New Delhi to Bhubaneshwar by opposite party / airline vide passenger ticket and baggage check no.705 6002273324. The complainant was issued boarding with seat no.32F and luggage ticket number S 2678339 and D 2678340 for two bags. After the passengers had boarded the flight, it was announced that their luggage would be carried by Indian Airlines Flight No.IC 877 and would be handed over to the passengers at Bhubaneshwar Airport. However, on his arrival at Bhubaneshwar Airport, the complainant was handed over only one bag and his bag with tag number S2678339 was found missing. The complainant was thus granted 'Property Irregularity Report". When the opposite party failed to deliver the second missing tag, the respondent / complainant filed consumer complaint claiming a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards the cost of material lost, Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- for mental harassment and agony.

(3.) The petitioner / opposite party resisted the complaint. In the written statement, the opposite party while admitting the fact that one bag of the complainant booked with the opposite party had gone missing, the opposite party took the plea that the complainant was not entitled to the relief sought because before boarding the flight, he had not given declaration in the prescribed format regarding the nature of valuables contained in the missing bag and also because he did not pay additional charges for the same. The opposite party took the plea that complainant is entitled only for Rs.450/- per kg as per the provisions of carriage by Air Act 1972. It was claimed that weight of missing bag was 8 kg. The opposite party also pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on its part.