AIR INDIA LTD Vs. J C OSUKEU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. J. C. Osukeu is a Nigerian and was studying in Khalsa College, Chandigarh. After the examinations he wanted to go and visit Nigeria. He got a seat booked in Air India and on reaching Bombay on 19.1.1995; he got his 6 suitcases weighed. The total weight was found 115 kgs. and it indicated that the luggage was in excess by 65 kgs. At Bombay, after weighment, when the complainant was collecting his luggage instead of 6, only 5 suitcases were delivered to him and one was missing. The complainant ultimately approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh, and on 10.4.1997, a sum of Rs.30,000/- (though in the complaint, a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs was demanded) has been awarded as compensation together with costs of Rs.2,000/- in respect of lost suitcase. Aggrieved against it, the Air India Limited, Chandigarh, New Delhi and Bombay, who were originally impleaded, have attempted this appeal.

(2.) The fact that instead of 6 suitcases, only 5 were delivered after weighment, has not been denied in a reply filed on behalf of the appellants in the Forum. The plea of the appellant had been that the passenger was entitled to carry only 85 kgs. of luggage as 20 kgs. were admissible without any extra payment. A perusal of property report, Annexure P2, shows that only 5 suitcases were delivered weighing 90 kgs. It is an admitted case that the respondent was carrying luggage, which was more than the permissible. The passenger spent several days at Bombay and had been making attempts to collect the lost suitcase from appellants. In para 7 of the reply, the appellants took up a specific plea in the Forum that the respondent was entitled to carry only 20 kgs. without payment and he was carrying 65 kgs. extra and that the answering respondents were not liable to pay any compensation claimed by the complainant, has no merit. Once it has been affirmed and practically admitted that only 5 out of 6 suitcases were delivered, the deficiency on the part of the appellants was well established.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent, some details were given in his letter dated 11.4.1995, Annexure P3, that the suitcases in question contained suit pieces, mathematical instruments and other valuables has not been rebutted. The conclusion is that the compensation awarded does not call for any interference or reduction. The appeal is dismissed.