Kang Hwee Gee J:

The plaintiffs were passengers of Malaysian Air System Flight MH 181 from Madras to Kuala Lumpur on 1 June 1995. They had checked in with their baggage at Madras airport at about 9pm on that day and had an excess baggage of 20 kilogrammes. They paid the excess baggage payment of Rs. 4080 (RM325) imposed by the defendant.

Upon landing at Subang International Airport, Kuala Lumpur, the plaintiffs were stopped by an officer of the airline who insisted that their baggage be re-weighed. They were at the time proceeding to customs with their baggage on trolleys. They were directed to a baggage counter where the defendant's employees went through another process of re-weighing their baggage. Their baggage was found to be 60 kilogrammes in excess instead of only 20 kilogrammes as determined at Madras Airport. They insisted that the plaintiffs pay an additional RM618 failing which their baggage would not be released to them.

They protested but to no avail. The ordeal lasted some two hours from 5.40am to 7.40am when in the end the plaintiffs managed somehow to settle the sums with the defendant.

The plaintiffs sought by this originating summons, a declaration that the defendant had no right to charge the plaintiffs an excess baggage payment of RM618 at the Subang International Airport on 2 June 1995 and that the imposition of such a charge on the plaintiffs was void and illegal.

They also seek an order that the said sum of RM618 be returned to them and that damages suffered by the plaintiffs be assessed by the senior assistant registrar.

Kamalanathan Retnam JC (as he then was) before whom the originating summons was heard gave judgment for the plaintiff. He ordered damages to be assessed before the registrar.

At the hearing before the registrar it was submitted that the plaintiffs were held up for some two hours from 5.40am until 7.40am. They were unable to collect their baggage unless they settled the sum the defendant demanded. For most of the time they were kept standing at the baggage counter. The defendant's employees were rude. At the time when the defendant's employees directed them to the baggage counter to have their baggage re-weighed other passengers were present. The plaintiffs were embarrassed.

Both the parties submitted the affidavits of their witnesses to the registrar. The witnesses were also cross-examined in person before him.

The first plaintiff was a practising lawyer. He was the head of the youth wing of the Malaysian Indian Congress and was also its Chief of Information for the State of Perak. He also held the chairmanship of two private registered companies. At the time he arrived at Subang Airport his friends and supporters were waiting to welcome him. He did not have enough money to pay to the defendant as he had already spent all of it on his relatives in India He had to resort to borrow the sum from his friends in consequence of which they had put him in low esteem. By reason of the act of the defendant he said he suffered physical inconvenience, mental distress, agony, humiliation, loss of reputation and injured feeling.

The second plaintiff was the wife of the first plaintiff. She went through the same experience and claimed to have suffered the same loss as the first plaintiff as a result. She also claimed to have suffered flight phobia as she came to realise later that the plane had been flying with excess weight and had therefore compromised on safety. She consulted her doctor a Dr. Raja Ram who gave evidence supporting her complaint. He treated her for weakness and fatigue, but not for any psychological condition.

The third plaintiff was a housewife and a part-time tour operator undertaking tours for groups to India. She also claimed to have suffered the same loss as the first plaintiff. She was disturbed by the incident that she could not continue her part-time tour business and had to be brought by a friend to see a priest in India. In addition she also claimed a loss of incom