The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the liability of the airline for lost baggage under Rule-22 Schedule-II of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, and the inapplicability of Rule-25 as an exception to the limited liability rule.

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, (P.M) - The petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order of the dismissal of his first appeal against the order of the District Forum Cuttack has preferred this revision petition.

2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent/complainant is a Doctor. On 13.03.2007, respondent travelled from New Delhi to Bhubaneshwar by opposite party/airline vide passenger ticket and baggage check no.705 6002273324. The complainant was issued boarding with seat no.32F and luggage ticket number S 2678339 and D 2678340 for two bags. After the passengers had boarded the flight, it was announced that their luggage would be carried by Indian Airlines Flight No. IC 877 and would be handed over to the passengers at Bhubaneshwar Airport. However, on his arrival at Bhubaneshwar Airport, the complainant was handed over only one bag and his bag with tag number S2678339 was found missing. The complainant was thus granted 'Property Irregularity Report". When the opposite party failed to deliver the second missing tag, the respondent/complainant filed consumer complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards the cost of material lost, Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental harassment and agony.

3. The petitioner/opposite party resisted the complaint. In the written statement, the opposite party while admitting the fact that one bag of the complainant booked with the opposite party had gone missing, the opposite party took the plea that the complainant was not entitled to the relief sought because before boarding the flight, he had not given declaration in the prescribed format regarding the nature of valuables contained in the missing bag and also because he did not pay additional charges for the same. The opposite party took the plea that complainant is entitled only for Rs. 450/- per kg as per the provisions of carriage by Air Act 1972. It was claimed that weight of missing bag was 8 kg. The opposite party also pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on its part.

4. Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay to the respondent/complainant a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards the cost of articles contained in the missing bag, Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- towards litigation expenses.

5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal and the State Commission Orissa Cuttack while concurring with the order of the District Forum dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioner/opposite party to comply with the order of the District Forum. The State Commission also added that the award shall carry interest of 9% p.a. w.e.f. 13.03.2007, though there was no plea of the opposite party for enhancement of the awarded amount by adding the interest to be paid on the amount awarded by the District Forum.

6. Shri Sanjay Pal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the foras below have passed impugned orders in violation of Rule-22 Schedule-II of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 which provides that in the carriage of registered luggage and of goods the liability of the career is limited to a sum of Rs. 450/- per kg. unless the consigner has made a special declaration of value of the luggage/goods and has paid a supplementary sum if required. Learned counsel has contended that admittedly in the instant case the value of the baggage was not declared by the respondent/complainant. Therefore, he is entitled only to a sum of Rs. 3,600/- for his baggage weighing 8 kgs. calculated at the rate of Rs. 450/- per kg.

7. Learned Shri R.K. Mehta, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He has contended that admittedly the baggage of the complainant was offloaded by the petitioner after the complainant has boarded the plane and the passengers