w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Air Deccan (Deccan Aviation Ltd.) Rep. by its General Manager (Legal) v/s B.V. Dinesh & Another

Company & Directors' Information:- DECCAN INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2009PTC064949

    Revision Petition No. 2401 of 2008

    Decided On, 01 October 2013

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Ms. Radha, Advocate with Maruti Rao, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Nemol/Ex-parte, R2, Ex-parte.

Judgment Text

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 17.04.2008 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 736/08 – Air Deccan (Deccan Aviation Ltd.) Vs. Dinesh B.V. & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant no. 1/Respondent no. 1 and his mother, Complainant no. 2/Respondent no. 2 booked tickets with OP/petitioner for 19.11.2006 from Bangalore to Chennai. Complainants got checked their luggage and got boarding pass. After arriving in Chennai, they were unable to get their bag and on inquiry came to know that it was misplaced and accordingly airport authorities issued endorsement in that regard. The said bag was containing valuable clothes and other articles, but could not be traced. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint. OP-petitioner resisted complaint and denied allegation of missing of the bag and further alleged that complainant has not mentioned the weight of the alleged baggage and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay 400 US$ (Rs.15,804/-) along with Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. None appeared for the respondents even after service and they were proceeded ex-parte.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that hand baggage lost and its weight could not have been 20 kg and learned District Forum committed error in awarding compensation for 20 kg. baggage and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

6. Perusal of record clearly reveals that hand bag was not missing, but bag was missing and as per damaged/missing slip it was hand bag make but was not hand baggage. Perusal of copy of boarding pass on the missing slip further reveals that weight of the baggage has not been mentioned on the boarding pass. In such circumstances, learned District Forum has not committed any error in allowing compensation for maximum weight of 20 kg, as per Carrier by Air Act, 1972. Learned State Commission has not committed any e

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rror in dismissing appeal. 7. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.