AIR FRANCE Vs. SONALI ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CASE of the complainant in brief is that Ms. Sonali Arora had bought air tickets for herself and her two minor daughters from the opposite party World Ways Travels (P) Ltd. , Jallandhar-OP No. 1 on 27. 4. 1998 for going on a trip to France, England and USA. OP No. 1-World Ways Travels (P) Ltd. , Jallandhar is a agent of OP No. 2-Air France, Cannaught Place, New Delhi. The complainant along with her minor daughters left Chicago on return journey on 30. 6. 1998 via Paris and they touched London on 1. 7. 1998. When they were to leave London Heathrow on 4. 7. 1998 by Air France Flight, the staff posted by OP No. 2 at the airport did not allow her to carry one of her handbags inside the plane. Even after checking like visa, etc. , as per international flight norms, though the bags were within the permissible limits and the said handbag was with the complainant through-out her journey before this episode. This handbag contained valuable articles like camera, photograph, souvenirs, etc.

(2.) DISTRICT Forum after hearing the parties held that neither any cause of action nor any part of cause of action has arisen even remotely, at Jallandhar, hence, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum also held that it is not the case of the complainant that she had lost the hand bag due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or the bag was stolen or misplaced or lost in transit. Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties and going through the records of the case held that District Forum, Jallandhar has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further after analysing the affidavit of the complainant and OP No. 2 the State Commission held that action of OP No. 2 in not allowing the complainant to carry the handbag inside the plane amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, as against the claim for Rs. 4. 00 lakh the State Commission has awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation and has also assessed Rs. 50,000 as damages to the complainant along with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000.