Surinder Jathaul vs Emirates India/Nicolete

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 180/13 - Surinder Jathaul Vs. Emirates India by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner took OP/Emirates Flight from Dubai on 29.9.2009. While complainant was sitting on seat 31K, a heavy suitcase placed in a hatch above, fell on his head and caused injury. Air Hostess advised complainant to get admitted in the hospital immediately, but complainant refused and after landing at Indira Gandhi International Airport, complainant managed to reach Chandigarh. Later on, complainant asked OP to pay 5000 Canadian dollars to enable complainant to get expert medical advice and care, which was refused. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and raised objection of jurisdiction and other objections that complainant had not suffered any significant injury and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with Rs.11,000/- as litigation cost. Complainant filed appeal before learned State Commission for enhancement of compensation which was dismissed against which; this revision petition has been filed. Heard petitioner in person and perused record.

PETITIONER submitted that petitioner is entitled to get additional amount as per Montreal Convention of 1999, implemented by the Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act, 2009 and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum has committed error in not allowing compensation, as per aforesaid Act; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that learned District Forum granted adequate compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Learned State Commission while dismissing appeal observed in paragraph 10 as under: "Admittedly, soon after boarding the flight, but prior to take off from Dubai, the complainant reported to the cabin crew namely Ms.Jessica Ann De Costa that he was hit on the head, due to fall of a suitcase, from the hat rack/overhead storage for cabin baggage. It is evident, from the record that the complainant declined to avail of any medical assistance, stating that he was fine and that the small bump on his said doctor (Annexure 3 to 5) at pages 158 to 160 of the District Forum file reveals that due to fall of heavy object overhead-8 days ago, some symptoms of restlessness, headache and giddiness were reported and head could be effectively treated with an icepack. Accordingly, an ice pack was applied on his head and the staff, on duty, regularly visited the complainant to ensure about his well-being, but he never complained and ultimately, he landed at his destination safely. However, the complainant visited Dr.Gauri Joshi after 9 days of the said incident. The prescription slip issued by the under the heading of examination, it was mentioned as vitals-stable. Thus, no inference could be drawn, from the prescription slip that the complainant received fatal/serious head injury, due to fall of the suitcase. The onus was, thus, upon the complainant to prove the same but he neither filed the affidavit of the concerned doctor nor placed, on record, any documentary evidence, in the form of MRI/CT Scan report etc. to establish the fact that he suffered any fatal/serious head injury. No doubt, the complainant did not suffer any fatal/serious injury, but this fact could not be denied that a suitcase had fallen from the hat rack/overhead storage for cabin baggage over his head which caused a lot of mental agony and physical harassment to him. The District Forum, while appreciating this fact rightly awarded the compensation and litigation costs. Taking into consideration the nature of injury, the District Forum was also right in holding that the compensation of CAD 5000 claimed by the complainant was on the higher side. Thus, the order of the District Forum is just, adequate and reasonable and no interference of this Commission is called for. The appeal filed by the complainant is devoid of any merit, as no ground, whatsoever, is made out, for the enhancement of the compensation, in accordance with the Rule 21 (1) of the Act ibid.

We do not find any infirmity, irregularity or jurisdiction error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

PETITIONER is free to initiate other proceedings under Carriage by Air Act, 2009 against the respondent if law so permits.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.