THOMAS GEORGE vs MALAYSIAN AIRLINES

THIS action has come up for admission before us today. The 1st and the 2nd complainants are spouses. The complainants 3 to 5 are their kids.

THE opposite party is the Malaysian Airlines. The family of the complainants, it appears, made a holiday trip from Madras to Singapore, Malaysia, on 21.4.1999. They booked the return tickets also. According to their schedule, they were to return back to Madras by Flight No. MH 622 departing from Singapore at 20.10 hours on 30.4.1999. The return ticket is a confirmed one. That apart, the confirmed ticket was re-confirmed about 3 days prior to the departure.

It appears, when they were at Singapore, the opposite party Airlines contacted them on 30.4.1999 at 4.30 p.m. and intimated them that they should be get ready to rush to the Airport to catch Flight No. MH 0618 that was scheduled to leave Singapore at 18.30 hrs. The complainants with no option have to come to the Airport to catch the said flight or otherwise they would get stranded at Singapore.

THE complainants would say that because of the preponement of the flight they suffered not only mental agony and anguish but they were also not able to make effective purchases at Singapore. This apart, they would also claim that they also purchased a 34" Colour T.V. at a cost of Rs. 62,500/- to be taken to Madras on the return journey. THEy would further claim that before they venture to purchase the said T.V., they contacted the officials of the opposite party Airlines and ascertained as to whether it would be feasible to have the T.V. purchased as a check-in baggage. THE opposite party Airlines, they would say, replied that there might not be any difficulty for the T.V. to be taken back to Madras as a check-in baggage. When they arrived at the Airport, so much of insurmountable obstacles were placed by the opposite party Airlines in having the said T.V. to be taken to Madras as a check-in baggage and ultimately there was no other go for the complainants except to leave the said T.V. in the left baggage area. Alleging the factors as above, the complainants knocked at the doors of this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

THE reliefs they have prayed for in the complaint is as below : (1)Loss of the T.V. estimated at the price at which it was purchased at Singapore. Rs.62,500.00 (2)Retention Fee paid at the Left Baggage Area for the T.V. Rs.8,250.00 (3)Transporting charges of the T.V. from shop to the residence and then to the Airport. Rs.2,500.00 (4)Opportunity loss : THE failure to reap the benefit of the Trip being the value of the 5 Tickets. Rs.80,620.00 (5)Airport Tax/Visa etc. Rs.12,000.00 (6)Mental agony and suffering on account of the following : (a)Directing to prepone the return journey and the inability of viewing the World Cup Cricket match on the T.V. Rs.1, 50,000.00 (b)Inability to collect gifts from the friends and consequent loss of friendship and reputation. Rs.25,000.00 (c)Mental Agony in abandoning the T.V. at Left Baggage Area at that time. Rs.25,000.00 (d)Mental agony in not being able to shop other goods at Singapore. Rs.75,000.00 (e)Loss of Free Baggage allowances Rs. 12,000 x 5. Rs.60,000.00 (7)Punitive Damages Rs.1,00,000.00 Total Rs. 6,00,870.00 We heard the arguments of learned Counsel M/s. Anita Thomas, appearing for the complainants. We also perused the averments in the complaint and also the documents filed alongwith it. Such perusal reveals the following factors : Even assuming for arguments sake though not admitting that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, yet, we feel that the damages claimed and quantified in a sum of Rs. 6,00,870/- is in an astronomical figure without any basis whatsoever. This aspect of the matter will be crystal clear if one is asked to have a glimpse or glance of items 6(a) to (e) and 7 as listed in paragraph 16 of the complaint. The damage claimed for their inability to view the World Cup Cricket Match during the 1 hour 40 minutes is Rs. 1,50,000/- which no reasonable man could be expected to claim such a damage and if at all if any damage is there for non-viewing the T.V. during the said 1 hour and 40 minutes can if at all be only minimal. The inability to collect gifts from friends is estimated at Rs. 25,000/-. This sort of a claim has no legs to stand at all. No material worth the name is placed on record to point out that certain friends who were ready and willing to present them with gifts at the Airport, were dismayed by their preponing the visit. Such a claim cannot be any one other than an imaginary claim. Then compensation for mental agony is claimed under 3 heads. One is mental agony in abandoning the T.V. quantified in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-; other is mental agony in not being able to shop other goods in Singapore Rs. 75,000/-. The third one is loss of free baggage allowances Rs. 60,000/-. The very claims made under mental agony by themselves will show that they are fanciful claims and nothing further. This apart, they would also claim under punitive damage Rs. 1,00,000/-. No material worth the name had been placed on record to make such a claim. They have also made a claim under head of loss of the value of 5 tickets, namely Rs. 80,620/-. They made the trip and they were available at Singapore and Malaysia as scheduled and their visit as already indicated had been pre-poned by 1 hour 40 minutes. For that they make a claim that the trip is a worthless trip and, therefore, they were entitled to the value of the 5 tickets. Such a claim is definitely on the face of it is untenable.

THIS apart, we also rather feel that the fanciful claims as above made are not without any significant purpose. The purpose is to attract the jurisdiction of the State Commission, added by the rationale for making any claim before the FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, no Court fee is payable.

IN such circumstances, we are of the view that as already indicated, even assuming for arguments sake but not admitting that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainants are to be compensated for such deficiency, such compensation amount inclusive of the value of the T.V., we rather feel, cannot go beyond the pecuniary value of the jurisdiction of the District Forum. In this view of the matter, the complaint is returned to be presented before the proper District Forum of course after making necessary amendments in the averments of the complaint. The office is also directed to return the complaint on a request emanating from the complainants by way of filing memo for proper presentation before the proper District Forum. Complaint returned to be presented before Dist. Forum.