8/14/2019 LUFTHANSA CASE.docx

1/3

Lufthansa

K. IBRAHIM,

6/35, Azad Street, Complainant

Thirumangalam 625 706.

Madurai District.

Vs

LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES,

167, Anna Salai, opposite party

Chennai 600 002.

Represented by its Customer Service Manager.

Date of Complaint 21.03.2006

M/s.V. Balaji & A. Sermaraj : Advocate for the complainant

M/s.P.R. Raman & S. Aravamudhan : Counsel for the opposite party

O R D E R

THIRU. P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT

Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8/14/2019 LUFTHANSA CASE.docx

2/3

1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

The complainant traveled along with his wife with the opposite partys airlines from Chicago to Chennaion 25th June 2005. At the time of departure at Chicago Airport the complainant had handed over 4suitcases weighing 129 kgs with the airlines. The suitcases contained an electronic goods worth about811.58 dollars equilent to Rs.34,062/-. When he arrived at Chennai Airport on 26.08.2005, he found thattwo suitcases were damaged and the electronic gift articles were missing. He lodged a report before theopposite party and the check up report was issued and in that report it was mentioned that the weightof the damaged baggage was 63 kgs. The complainant requested the opposite party to pay the fullamounts. But, the opposite party sent Rs.2025/- being the cost of the missing items. The complainantrefused to receive the same. As per rule 22 of the Carriage by Air Act, the complainant is entitled fordamages of 20 US dollars per kilogram and the damages for 62 kilograms comes around Rs.49,600/-.Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint claiming this amount and Rs.50,000/- as compensationfor mental agony and cost of the complaint.

2. The opposite party filed version and contended inter alia that the maximum weight allowed to becarried out at the time of United States was 32 kgs per suit case. After carrying out weight of thedamaged baggages it was found that only two kgs was missing. The Opposite party offered thecomplainant a sum of Rs.2025/- as full and final settlement. But the complainant refused to accept theamount. The opposite party is ready and willing to pay the costs of the damaged baggages onproduction of the bills. But the complainant did not submit any bills for the damaged baggages. Theopposite party was also willing to reimburse the costs of the new suitcases on production of the bills.

The two suitcases did not contain any such electronic things worth Rs.34,062/-. The carriers liability islimited to 20 US dollars for every kg of loss or damage to the baggage as per section 22 (2) of theCarriage by Air Act, 1972. Even if the suitcases contained any electronic items, the same was specificallyprescribed. The article 8.3.4 and 8.3.5 of the Carriage by Air Act as per the report there was only loss of2 kgs of weight and that too due to damage by the baggages and therefore the complainant is notentitled to relief as claimed in the complaint.

3. Proof affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite party. Exhibits A1 to A4were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the oppositeparties.

4. The points that arise for consideration are;-

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

opposite party?

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

8/14/2019 LUFTHANSA CASE.docx

3/3

5. Point No.1: The complainant traveled in the opposite partys Airlines from Chicago to Chennai andcarried 4 baggages weighing 129 kgs. According to the complainant, when he arrived at Chennai Airport,he found two suitcases weighing 63 kgs were damaged. On a claim made by the complainant theopposite party offered Rs.2025/- which was not accepted by the complainant. The complainant wouldsubmit that weighing of the damaged baggages was 63 kgs as per Ex A1. The perusal of Ex A1 which is

the same as Ex B1 it was found that 2 or 3 kgs were missing and the weighing of the damaged article was63 kgs. As per the article 8.3.4 and 8.3.5 of Carriage by Air Act, the complainant is not subjected to carryelectronic devices in the baggage. Hence, even if there was electronic goods, the complainant cannotclaim the same from the opposite party. According to the Exs A1, two or three kgs of the baggage wasmissing and that the complainant is entitled to compensation for 3 kgs at the rate of 20 US dollars perkg. The opposite party is willing to reimburse the costs of the new suitcases and damaged baggages onproduction of he bills. Since the opposite party has not reimbursed the amount for damaged of 3 kgsmentioned in Ex B1 and that the amount has not been settled for the damaged suit cases and that thedamaged baggage which amounts to deficiency in service. The point is answered accordingly.

6. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to reimburse thevalue of the damaged baggages for 3 kilograms at the rate of 20 US dollars per kilogram and alsodirected to reimburse the costs of new suitcase and damaged baggages on production of bills within twomonths from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the complainant. The opposite party is furtherdirected to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- as costs of the complaintto the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which theamount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.