Complaints against Airlines

Updated atMarch 2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

DISTRICT FORUM AT BOMBAY

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. OF 1999.

XYZ & & Complainant

Versus

Arctic Airways & Opposite Party

INDEX

SR NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

  1. Original Complaint 1-5

  2. Ex. A copy of the damaged memo 6-7

  3. Ex. B complaint dated 26/6/1999 8

  4. Ex. C letter dated 29/6/1999 from the

    Complainant to opposite party 9-10

  5. Ex. D reply dated 2/7/1999 from the

    opposite party to complainant 11

  6. Ex. E reply dated 9/7/1999 from the

    opposite party to complainant 12

  7. Ex. F Advocate''s notice dated 24/8/1999

    And acknowledgment 13-16

  8. Ex. G Particular of claim 17

  9. Vakalatnama 18

    BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

    DISTRICT FORUM AT BOMBAY

    ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. OF 1999.

    Mr. XYZ,

    18, Raza Bldg.,

    R.M Road, Mumbai 400 024. & Complainant

    Versus

    Arctic Airways,

    Mumbai Airport Terminal II A

    Sahar, Mumbai 400 099. & Opposite Party

    This complaint under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is presented on the grounds stated herein under:-

  10. That the Complainant is a diamond merchant and frequently travels out of India for business commitments and the Arctic Airways, the Opposite Party abovenamed, is a scheduled Airline operating flights to and from India and having its office at the address given in the title above.

  11. That the Complainant on 19/6/1999 travelled from London to Mumbai by Arctic Airways by flight No.BA 174 and carrier flight No.BA 139. When the Complainant reached Mumbai Airport, he found that his baggage included suitcase bearing carrier-bag tag No.DA 649098, brand name UNK had major damages and inter-alia following articles were lost from the said suitcase viz.

    i) One suit costing 34,950 Belgium Frank

    ii) Two sarees costing US $ 100 each

    iii) Two jeans costing US $ 90 each and,

    iv) Other articles

    The above articles totally weighed 12 kgs and the net value of the above lost articles was Rs.1,48,463/-.

    Ex.A3. The Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party at the Sahar Airport, Mumbai about the said loss articles. The said representative inspected the damaged suitcase and issued memo for damaged articles duly filled after the inspection wherein the damage has been shown as the major damage. The Opposite Party''s representative at the Airport informed the Complainant that the Complainant would be compensated for the said loss of articles. Hereto annexed and marked as Ex.A is the copy the above memo.

  12. The Complainant thereafter visited the Opposite Party twice or thrice when he was informed that he had to give written complaint for the above loss.

    EX. B5. The Complainant on 28/6/1999 forwarded the written complaint dated 26/6/1999 to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party asked the Complainant to produce the bills for the purchase of the said lost articles. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "B"is the copy of the said complaint dated 26/6/1999.

    EX.C6. Accordingly by a letter dated 29/6/1999, the Complainant submitted the bill for the purchase of the suit and also informed the Opposite Party that sarees and jeans were purchased on cash payment from New York and the bills for the said sarees and jeans have been lost with the above articles. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "C"is the copy of the said letter dated 29/6/1999.

    EX.D7. The Complainant states that by a reply dated 2/7/1999 the opposite party informed the complainant that they were liable for only the missing 12 kgs of the articles and were ready to reimburse the complainant US$240/-. The complainant did not accede to the said offer as it was much less then the value of the lost articles. Hereto annexed and marked as Ex.`D"is the copy of the above reply dated 2/7/1999.

  13. The Complainant states that again by a letter dated 9th July 1999 (the date is wrongly mentioned as 09 June 1999 in the said letter), the opposite party expressed their inability to pay the amount claimed by the complainant and reiterated that they were unable to better their offer of USD 240/-. Hereto annexed and marked as Ex.`E''is the copy of the above letter dated 9th July 1999.

    Ex.F

    EX.E9. As the Opposite Party did not accede to the complainant''s request, the complainant by an advocate''s notice dated 24th August 1999 called upon the Opposite Party to pay the loss suffered by the Complainant within 7 days of the receipt of the said notice. The said notice was duly received by the Opposite Party but neither they paid the above amount to the complainant nor replied to the said notice. Hereto annexed and marked as Ex. `F''is the copy of the above notice and its acknowledgment.

  14. The Complainant states that the amount offered by the opposite party for the loss of above articles is much less then the actual amount of the lost articles. The opposite party is responsible for the compensation of the lost articles according to the claims made by the complainant. The opposite party ought to have taken sufficient and adequate steps to avoid the loss due to its negligence and inefficiency. The opposite party is negligent in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT