NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Rajeev Malik —Complainant
versus
M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines —Opp.Party
Consumer Case No.136 of 2016
Decided on 22.4.2016
For the Complainant:Mr. Faisal Naseem, Mr. Ritesh Parshad, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Though consumer complaint against Carrier would be maintainable, compensation awarded by Forum cannot exceed monetary ceiling.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Carriage by Air Act, 1972—Clause 22(2) and 22(5) of Third Schedule—Airlines—Deficiency in services—Loss of baggage in course of transit—There is neither an averment in complaint nor any material on record to show that any specific value to baggage comprising rifles and ammunition was declared by complainant or a special declaration of interest in delivery of baggage at destination was made while entrusting baggage to opposite party—Though consumer complaint against Carrier would be maintainable, compensation awarded by Forum cannot exceed monetary ceiling prescribed in Schedules to the Act since granting higher compensation would be in conflict with and in derogation of provisions contained in Carriage by Air Act, 1972—Complaint dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. (Paras 7 to 10)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant is an International Paralympic Shooter with 70% disability but being able to play in both, open and handicapped category. He has been regularly representing India in International Events. The complainant travelled from New Delhi to Atlanta via Amsterdam, on 04.11.2015, on a flight operated by the opposite party KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, in order to participate in International Paralympic World Cup in Fort Benning, G.A., to be held from 31.10.2015 to 08.11.2015. The complainant had been permitted to carry rifles and ammunition required for competing in the aforesaid event. The said rifles and ammunition were also booked by him with the opposite party. However, when he disembarked from the aircraft at Atlanta airport and reached the lounge of the airport, he did not find the rifles and ammunition on the luggage belt/counter. The aforesaid articles could not be located by the opposite party despite efforts made by the complainant. He was assured by the opposite party that the missing articles of baggage would be delivered to him by next day i.e. 05.11.2015. The opposite party however, failed to deliver the said articles either on 05.11.2015 or on 06.11.2015. As a result, the complainant could not participate in the matches held on the aforesaid two dates. It was only on 07.11.2015, which was the last date of the tournament that the complainant was able to get a shooting rifle from a colleague namely Naresh Kumar Sharma but the opportunity to play in Rio 2016 Paralympic Games slipped away from him. On 08.11.2015, the complainant while embarking on his return journey to India, again made enquiry about the missing baggage but was told that the same would be delivered to him in Amsterdam. The baggage however, was not delivered to him even in Amsterdam and he was told that the same would be delivered to him in Delhi. When the complainant reached Delhi, the aforesaid missing baggage was not delivered to him. It was only on 04.12.2015 that the opposite party informed the complainant that they were able to trace the baggage but again they were unable to deliver the said baggage to him.
Vide letter dated 30.11.2015, SHO, P.S. IGI Airport informed the complainant that during the course of inquiry, the opposite party informed them that the missing baggage containing his licensed rifles/ammunition was delivered at Atlanta and they had initiated steps to get the baggage returned to India in order to hand over the same to him. The airlines however informed the SHO that the retrieval/restoration of the rifles/ammunition would be subject to U.S. security and legal requirements though they would take all possible steps to ensure that the time taken is reduced to the bare minimum. A copy of the communication dated 10.11.2015 received by the police from the opposite party was annexed to the aforesaid letter. A similar e-mail was sent by the opposite party to the complainant on 04.12.2015.
Since the rifles and ammunition booked by the complainant were not returned to him, he allegedly not only lost an opportunity to participate in Rio 2016 Para Olympic Games but also could not participate in the IPC Shooting World Cup held in UAE from 23.01.2016 to 27.01.2016. He also had to miss the forthcoming IPC Shooting World Cup to be held in Bangkok. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering services to him, the complainant is before this Commission seeking the following compensation:
S. No.
Particulars
Amount (in Rs.)
1.
Towards the loss of IPC World Cup Fort Benning, 2015
50 Lakhs
2.
Towards the loss of securing the berth In Rio 2016 Paralympic Games
1 Crore
3.
Towards loss of participation in National Shooting Championships, New Delhi 2015 and the expected medal since the complainant has