REVISION PETITION NO. 830 OF 2005

(Against the order dated 14/02/2005

in Appeal/ Complaint No. 780/2004

of the State Commission

KARNATAKA )

EQYPT AIR, ORIENTAL HOUSE 7, J. TATA ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020

........ Petitioner(s)

Vs.

SMT. SAI LEELAVATHI , C/O SHRI C. ANANDA, NO. 39/12, 7^TH MAIN, APPIREDDYAPALYA, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-38

........ Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT

MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER

For the Petitioner : Mr. Paresh M. Joshi, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Advocate

Dated the 16th day of February,2006

ORDER

M.B. SHAH. J. PRESIDENT

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. Respondent filed complaint No.1550/03 against the Egypt Air before the Bangalore Urban Consumer District Forum for loss of baggage and had claimed Rs.1,89,436/- alongwith interest and cost on the ground that while travelling from London to Cairo by the Petitioner’s
aircraft she lost her bag containing valuable items. It was not disputed by the Petitioner that the Complainant lost her bag. However, it contended that as per the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 the liability of Carrier is 20 US $ per kg. subject to maximum of 20 Kg. which works out to 400 US $. Therefore, it cannot be held liable for the sum awarded by the District Forum i.e. Rs.1,17,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. along with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Against that order Petitioner preferred appeal No.780/04 before the Karnataka State Commission. As none appeared for the Appellant/Petitioner the appeal was dismissed on that ground alone.

Against that order Petitioner (Egypt Air) has preferred this revision application.

At the time of hearing of this revision petition, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Joshi submitted that the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are, on the face of it, erroneous. He submitted that under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 the liability of the Petitioner is limited. This contention was raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission. It was

the duty of the State Commission to at least refer to the contentions which were raised in Appeal Memo and to decide the same on merits.

As against this Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the order passed by the District Forum was justified because the Complainant has lost the articles of the value of more than Rs.1,17,000/- .

In our view there is a specific provision under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, Schedule II Rule 22 which provides for the maximum limit of payment of compensation in such cases. In this view of the matter, this revision application requires to be allowed. Petitioner is directed to pay an amount equivalent to 400 US$ to the Complainant. At the time of admission the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- directly to the Complainant. That amount is paid. However, considering the facts of the case the Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the Complainant by
account payee cheque within a period of two weeks from today. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

………………………..J

(M.B. SHAH)

PRESIDENT

…………………………..

(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

MEMBER

Yd/11/court 1