Airline to pay for lost baggage after 10 years

NEW DELHI: Ten years after Arjan Dass and his family lived a nightmarish experience of trying to trace their lost baggage on landing in Kathmandu, they won $3,000 reimbursement case against the Royal Nepal Airlines in the consumer court. The court not only directed the airlines to reimburse the value of misplaced baggage at the rate of US $20 per kg, but also asked them to pay the complainants a sum of Rs 5,000 as compensation and costs.The airlines was asked to pay the equivalent amount in Indian currency. On May 2, 1992, Arjan Dass and his family took a Royal Nepal Airlines flight to travel from Delhi to Kathmandu. They handed over five suitcases, weighing 150 kg, to the airlines at the time of boarding the plane. But on reaching Kathmandu airport, all five suitcases were found lost. The airlines issued a property irregularity report with an assurance that either the complainants would get their bags back or they would be compensated for the lost property as per the rules. The airlines, however, was unable to trace the baggage. They also failed to pay the value of the lost property amounting to about Rs 1.4 lakh. Failing to get any response from the airlines, the complainants moved civil court, Batala and district court, Gurdaspur. Their complaint was, however, dismissed on the issue of territorial jurisdiction. On March 8, 2000, Das filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (New Delhi). They claimed compensation for the value of goods contained in the five suitcases and also US $400 per person for unchecked bags with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. Besides this, they also claimed damages of Rs 1 lakh for harassment. The airlines took a plea on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction saying that since the baggage was lost in Kathmandu, only the courts in Kathmandu can decide on the case. The airlines made an allegation against the complainants saying they were in the habit of cheating and that they had allegedly made similar complaints against other airlines. The judges L C Jain, R Narayana and Janak Juneja ruled that "the immunity being under the Section 86 of CPC, does not apply to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, we hold that the case is maintainable." It observed that though the airlines had made an allegation against the complainants that they lodged a false complaint against them, the airlines had no answer as to why the PIR was signed by the airline officials. It noted that the airlines had in fact, in a letter to the complainants, assured that the case has been forwarded to the insurance section for necessary action. The judges said that instead of levelling allegations against the complainants, the airlines must put their own house in order.