GULAB HOTCHAND BHAGCHANDANEY vs EGYPT AIRLINES

THE Complainant-Shri Gulab Hotchand Bhagchandaney has filed this complaint against Egypt Airlines and Egypt Air, Sphinx Travel. His case is that on 22nd May, 1993 he had purchased a return ticket for his wife and one ticket for himself from Bombay to Barcelona. THEy boarded the plane at Bombay on 4.7.1993. Before the plane was to take off all the passengers were told to leave the plane as there was security check. At that time it was raining heavily. After about seven hours passengers were allowed to board the plane. THEy travelled to Cairo where the Complainant and his wife stayed for one day and left for Barcelona on 5th July, 1993. When the Complainant and his wife got down at Barcelona airport they found their baggage completely wet and water pouring out from the baggage. Every thing was damaged. THE Complainant was carrying in his baggage some business samples and those became wet and damaged and lost their colour. THE dresses of the Complainant were completely stinking and wet and were unusable. He immediately reported the matter to Egypt Airlines Office where he was told to come later and complete the required forms. THE Complainant went to a hotel and stayed for one day. He could not negotiate the business as every thing was spoiled, wet, damaged, colourless and stinking. He could not wear his dress and his business plan which he had organised seven months in advance got wrecked due to the negligence of Egypt Airlines. He went to Madrid to see if he could procure some business there but as samples had become wet and damaged and stinking he could not do anything. He came back to Barcelona, saw the Egypt Air Staff, Marisol who completed all his papers and certified and recommended Egypt Airlines for arranging compensation.

IT was the further case of the Complainant that the Airlines rules and regulations entitled him to claim full compensation for his damaged luggage. The Egypt Airlines is bound to pay him all the losses which he suffered due to their negligence at the Bombay Airport. It was further the case of the Complainant that he is a small business man with a team of husband and wife and with limited financial capacity. He was going to stay in Spain and his, wife was to come back to India to execute orders. In the circumstances narrated above, he could not conduct any business. The money paid to the manufacturers remains unrealised since they made the goods according to specifications but could not be sold in the market. He had obtained foreign exchange to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- for business purposes and this shows that he would have at least sought business of Rs. 50.00 lakhs to Rs. 1.00 crore. The business was well-planned and on sound footing. On return to India the Complainant made inquiries from Egypt Airlines, Bombay where he was informed that no letter for compensation has been received in that office. The Complainant went to the office of Egypt Air at New Delhi where they first refused to receive the copy of the complaint but after lot of persuasion they took the complaint. However, the Complainant has not been paid anything by the Egypt Airlines. The Complainant claims expenses and damages for mental agony and suffering to the tune of Rs. 11,98,765/- details of which have been given in the complaint. Subsequently, he filed other applications for enhancement of the compensation. Ultimately he prayed for compensation amounting to Rs. 21,83,014/- with interest from the date of the complaint.

The complaint was contested by Egypt Airlines who in their counter denied all the allegations made against them in the complaint. It was pleaded that on 4th July, 1993 the flight from Bombay to Cairo was delayed due to l/omb threat to the aircraft. All the passengers were called upon to leave the plane immediately due to bomb threat. Thereafter complete security drill was carried out amidst heavy rain. The Complainant''s baggage got wet during this exercise for which it cannot be said that there was any wilful negligence on the part of the Egypt Airlines. During security drill each every part of the aircraft was got evacuated at an alarming speed during which time damage to the passengers''baggages took place especially when it was raining. During the period security drill is done at the airport due to a bomb threat, Police and Fire Brigade authorities take charge of the aircraft. The aircraft was taken to open space from passenger terminal where each and every part and things of the aircraft were checked at an alarming speed amidst heavy rains. Hence they are not liable to compensate the Complainant for any amount as there was no negligence on the part of the Egypt Airlines. In fact the circumstances were beyond the control of the Egypt Airlines. Thus consequential loss due to the damage to the baggage of the Complainant cannot be attributed to Egypt Airlines. It was further pleaded that in any case the liability of the Egypt Airlines for the damage is restricted to US Dollar 20 per kg. and thus the Complainant is entitled to a maximum of US $ 400. Further under Rule 22(2) of the Carriage By Air Act, 1972 the liability of Carrier is restricted to 250 francs per kg. unless the passenger had made at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest, in delivery at destination and had paid a supplementary sum if the case so required. In the present case the Complainant had not made any special declaration of interest and had not paid any supplementary sum and hence he is not entitled to any amount more than 250 francs per kg. In fact the Complainant is not entitled even to this amount of 250 francs per kg. as the loss to the baggages was not due to the negligence of the Egypt Airlines.

WE have heard the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is not disputed that when the flight was to take off from Bombay to Cairo on 4th July, 1993 there was a bomb threat. Therefore, it was but natural that all the passengers had to leave the plane immediately. The aircraft was taken to an open place from the passenger terminal where its charge was taken over by the Officer, Incharge of Controller of Explosive, Officer, Incharge Airlines Security, Officer Incharge, Airport Security and the Police. All the luggage was also taken out of the aircraft for scrutiny. A certificate about anti-sabotage check in respect of bomb threat has been filed on the file by Egypt Airlines. It is also not in dispute that at that time it was raining heavily. WE fail to understand how Egypt Airlines can be held to be responsible for this damage caused to the baggage of the Complainant. At the time of security drill the aircraft and the baggage were not under the control of Egypt Airlines. In subsequent applications the Complainant has alleged that they were not properly treated by the Egypt Airlines Authorities at Barcelona. WE are of the opinion that no compensation on that ground can be claimed in India under the Consumer Protection Act as the cause of action for that claim occurred at Barcelona. Petition dismissed.