Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President—Complainant was unable to take a flight from Hong Kong to Seoul on a particular day and he lost his baggage as well for which he filed the present complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming Rs. 1,05,53,771.00, comprising as under :

The complainant most modestly puts his claim for compensation as under along with interest @ 24% from 10.6.1999 :

(A) Refund of the entire amount of Ticket

Rs

39,196.00

(B) Expenses incurred by the complainant during his stay at various destinations.

Rs

2,07,120.00

(C) Compensation towards mental and physical agony

Rs

6,77,455.00

(D) Compensation towards loss of reputation

Rs

10,00,000.00

(E) Loss in business

Rs

86,30,000.00

Rs

1,05,53,771.00

2. On the face of it, it is complainant who has abused the process of the Consumer Protection Act where relief is claimed without rhyme or reason, simply because Court-fee is not payable and no expense otherwise fee other than the Counsel is to be incurred by the consumer. Consumer Forum send notices to the parties at the cost of State Exchequer.

3. Complainant who claims to be a businessman of repute and the Managing Director and Director of certain companies wanted to go to Seoul in South Korea to attend Trade Week ’98 organised in Seoul where various Korean Companies had confirmed participation. With the hope that he will get orders for his companies including supply of 40,000 tons of rice, complainant thought of visiting Seoul and taking part in the Trade Week ’98. He got a confirmed ticket from M/s. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. through M/s. Pawansut Tour and Travel Service, a travel agent with the following itinerary :

“Date

Destination

6th July 1998

Bombay

- Hong Kong

6th July 1998

Bombay

- Seoul

14th July 1998

Seoul

- Taipai

18th July 1998

Taipai

- Tokyo

25th July 1998

Tokyo

- Hong Kong

25th July 1998

Hong Kong

- Bangkok

29th July 1998

Bangkok

- Bombay”

4. Complainant reached Hong Kong alright. He was to take next flight from Hong Kong to Seoul. He got the boarding pass and sat in the aircraft. It is stated that after 3-1/2 hours passengers were told that flight had been cancelled and that they would be taken to Seoul on the following day in the next flight. Complainant was accommodated in a hotel. His complaint is that his two baggages containing important documents/papers, photographs, samples of various qualities of rice and business diary were not handed over to him. This fact has been denied in the reply filed by the airlines. They said that two baggages were in fact delivered to the complanant. However, when the complainant reached Seoul next day his bagggage did not arrive and he was told that airlines staff missed loading the baggage in the aircraft. Complainant says on account of this he was seriously jeopardized in his business and the whole purpose of his visit was lost. To cut it short, complainant left Seoul on 10.7.1998 for Hong Kong staying there till 13th July, 1998 from where he proceeded to Bangkok on 14.7.1998 and came back to India on 15th July, 1998. Complainant says he had to cancel his visit to Taipai and Tokyo and to cut short his visit by 14 days. Hence the claim for over Rs. 1.00 crore.

5. Cause of action in such a case would arise on 7.7.1998 as at that time the baggage of the complainant at Seoul was not delivered to him. Under Rule 30 of Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, action for damages has to be brought within two years from 7.7.1998 when complainant reached Seoul. This Rule 30 reads as under :

“(1) The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within two years reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.

(2) The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the Court seized of the case.”

6. We may also quote Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 providing for period of limit