SUBODH C GUPTA Vs. SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -COMPLAINANTS are U. S. citizens. They had purchased two round trip tickets from Delhi in the business class on May 15, 1999 bearing No. 117-6894467851-54 with flight sectors as Delhi-Copenhagen-Newark-Copenhagen-Nice-Copenhagen-Delhi. On this sector-2 checked in baggages are allowed with maximum weights of 64 kgs. On May 23, 2000 the complainant boarded the SAS flight at Newark at 18. 15 hours and checked their luggage. At the time of receiving the baggage from the complainants no objection was raised by the OP and the baggage was cleared since it was found within the permissible limits. The baggage was received at Copenhagen Airport. Except for the bare minimum required by the complainants the rest of their luggage was deposited in the left luggage facility as the complainants were proceeding to Nice for few days. The complainants boarded the SAS flight from Copenhagen to Nice at 10. 45 hrs on May 24th 2000. In Nice they did not check in their baggage. They retained it as hand baggage. From Nice Lyon-Nice the complainants travelled by Air France. Complainants were instructed by the officials of Air France at Lyon to check in their hand baggage, which would accordingly be off-load at Copenhagen. The SAS flight from Nice to Copenhagen was delayed, with the result that only about an hour was left for them to board the flight to Delhi. The complainants retrieved their luggage from the left-luggage counter at Copenhagen and sought to check it in on the Copenhagen-Delhi flight and also requested the SAS officials to off-load their hand baggage which had been checked in at Lyon since the same was intended to be carried as hand-baggage in the flight from Copenhagen to Delhi. The SAS officials refused to do so for some undisclosed reasons and instead asked the complainants to pay at least $3,000 in case they wanted their luggage to be checked in and loaded on the same flight on the plea that the facility of carrying 64 kgs. in two baggage pieces per person was not available while boarding the flight from Copenhagen. The complainants having boarded the flight from Newark were entitled to the same allowance of baggage and since they were travelling on the same ticket they could not be subjected to different baggage rules en route. The officials of the OP for some ulterior motives wanted the complainants not to board their flight till the controversy was settled and they tried to intimate the complainants by threatening to hand over to the police, the baggage of the complainants consisting of 3 suitcases and 1 carton, for incineration, if the complainants board the flight without their luggage or without paying the money demanded by them.

(2.) THE complainant No. 1 was a frequent flyer (No. EBB075190-793) of SAS Airlines and was well versed with the rules and regulations applicable to him. The complainant No. 1 was a heart patient and the complainant No. 2 was suffering from Arthritis. The complainants had important and pressing engagements in India they could not afford to miss their flight to New Delhi from Copenhagen. As such, the complainants had no option but to board the flight without their baggage, (3 suitcases and one carton which contained their clothes, doctors prescribed food items medicines, laptop computer as well as gift items for friends and relatives in India and all their day-to-day belongings to be used by them during their long stay in India. Out of the four pieces of hand luggage, which were booked on the said flight, the complainant could retrieve only one. With respect to the checked in luggage lost in transit, the complainants have already lodged the claim with the OP. The complainants on arriving at Delhi immediately contacted their travelling agent M/s. Ashwa Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. who sought the relevant enquires with the office of the OP and confirmed and certified that the complainants were entitled to 2 number of baggage with maximum capacity of 32 kgs. each piece and this allowances was admissible irrespective of taking a stop-over in Europe en-route to their main destination from Delhi to Newark to Delhi. As a result of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices adopted by the OP wilfully and deliberately, the complainants have been deprived of all their essential items. The complainants had endured so much strain and stress that the complainant No. 1 fell sick after their return. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 8. 6. 2000 to the OP. The OP had neither replied nor complied with the said notice. The OP failed to fulfil their under-taking and responsibility as well as their implicit commitment to the complainants to give them their luggage a safe passage to their destination. The complainants have sought following reliefs:

(3.) IN its defence the OP averred that the complainants had purchased the following tickets-