Case No.CC/481/2008

Date of Institution: - 03.06.2008

Order Reserved on: - 14.05.2024

           Date of Order: - 09.09.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M. P. Bansal

D.C. Residence,

Mahoindergarh Road, Narnaul.

          …..Complainant

Versus

Air  France,

Tower 8 C, Cyber City,

DLF Phase-II,

Gurgaon – 122002.

(Haryana)

..…Opposite Party

O R D E R

DR. HARSHALI KAUR, MEMBER

1. Admitted facts of the Complaint are that the Complainant travelled on OP flight number AF1325 on 23.07.2007 from Delhi to Lisbonand then onwards toParis.
2. The complainants grievance is that he was not served any food on the flight on 23.07.2007 as he was a vegetarian.When he enquired from the OPcrew member regarding the meal on the flight he was informed that they did not have any vegetarian food on board the flight.Hence, he went hungry during that leg of the journey.
3. Thereafter, on his onward journey from Paris to Delhi, a tag depicting his vegetarian status was flagged. However, after receiving his meal, the Complainant took some bites and realisedsomething was wrong with the meal.
4. To the complainant's shock, the crew member of the OP airline clarified that he had been served non-vegetarian food.Since the Complainant was a strict vegetarian, his religious sentiments were deeply hurt, and he wrote a letter claiming damages from the OP to no avail.
5. Further, the Complaint claims that the OPmocked him by sending a Rs.1,690/- coupon instead of addressing his grievance. He then issued a legal notice dated 31.08.2007.
6. Aggrieved at the OP's conduct, the Complainant filed the present case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking directions to the OP to pay him Rs.28,000/- towards the Air tickets with interest @ 24% p.a. and further pendalite interest @ 24% and damages amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience and hardship caused to him.
7. On Notice, the OP filed their reply.The OP states that the Complainant was travelling on an official assignment;thus, the travel itself would fall under the scope of 'commercial purpose' and expressly excluded in the Act. Hence, the Complainant is not a consumer.
8. Further, the Complaint's ticket wasbooked in Chandigarh and the OP's office is located at Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, due to which the territorial jurisdiction to file this Complaint falls with DCDRC-VI, K.G. Marg, New Delhi, and this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this Complaint. Hence,the Complaintshould be dismissedfor want of territorial jurisdiction.
9. On merits, the OP denied the Complainant's allegations and stated that the Complainant was served a vegetarian meal during his travel. The Complainant has failed to disclose that the Complainant's travel agent while booking the flight, had requested vegetarian food, which was rejected by the OP Airline. This "reject" information was reflected on the PNR (Passenger Name Record) viewed by the Complainant's travel agent on the same day the ticket was booked, i.e. 17.07.2007. Annexure OP-1 is a copy of the relevant extract of the PNR. Therefore, either the Complainant's travel agent failed to inform the Complainant that the OP had declined to provide a vegetarian meal to the Complainant on the Lisbon/Parissector or the Complainant, despite the refusal communicated to him, chose to travel with the OP.
10. In the European sector, special meals (Asian/Indian Veg Meals) are available on all OP flights, which are more than 2 hours and 30 minutes long. The scheduled departure time of the Complainant's flight was 10.30 hrs. (Lisbon time), and arrival at Paris was at 1400 hrs(Paris time). Thus, the duration of this flight was 2 hours 30 minutes; hence, no special meals were available on the flight, due to which the Complainant's request for a vegetarian meal was declined by the OP at the time of ticket booking itself;surely viewed by his travel agent.Further, no record of the Complainant being served a non-vegetarian meal on board AF 148 was submitted.
11. However, in the letter dated 30.07.2007, it is clarified by the OP that a sticker of 'KSML' was tagged to his seat during his flight when the alleged incident took place. The sticker, which means 'Kosher' meal, may have remained on the seat inadvertently. This 'Kosher' meal is a special meal served to the followers of the Jewish faith, and the sticker may not have been removed by the ground staff in Paris. It may have been left on the Complainant's seat from a previous flight due to the failure of ground staff in Paris to remove it; thus, beyond the control of the OP.
12. The OP also stated that upon receiving the Complainant's letter dated 30.07.2007,theyissued an apology letter dated 13.08.2007 without admitting any lapse on their part alongwith a non-refundable MCO (Miscellaneous Charges Order) of Rs.1690/- to the Complainant which was not received back by them, as a goodwill gesture. The OP, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the Complaint.
13. The Complainant filed a rejoinder and his affidavit to be read as evidence reiterating the averments as made in the Complaint. The OP also filed the affidavit of Mr. Peiter de Man, General Manager at the OP Airline, who echoed the statements made in the reply. The Complainant and the OP filed written arguments.We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the OP as the Complainant did not appear despite several opportunities. Due to its long pendency, we felt it prudent to decide the present case based on the material on record.
14. We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the present Complaint and have also perused the documents filed on record by the contesting parties.
15. We find that the Complainant got his tickets booked for an official assignment from a travel agency, M/s. Grand Travel Planner (P) Ltd. in Chandigarh for travel on the OP Airline on 19.07.2007 and returning on 23-24 July 2007 on AF 1325/AF148 Lisbon/Paris/Delhi.
16. The Complainant alleged that while on the return journey, he did not get any food in the Lisbon - Paris sector and was given non-vegetarian food in his Paris - Delhi sector. He further states that a tag depicting his vegetarian status was stuck on his seat, but despite the Complainant's letter seeking damages to the OP for hurting his religious sentiments, the OP did not resolve his grievance and instead further mocked him by sending a coupon of Rs.1690/- after which he sent a legal notice to the OP dated 31.08.2007 to no avail.
17. The OP filed their reply denying the Complainant's claim and raised preliminary objections towards the maintainability of the Complaint. Before delving into the merits of the present case, we feel it is pertinent to address the preliminary objections raised by OP.

18. The OP states that the Complainant, who travelled for an official visit on their flight, is not a consumer as per the provisions in Section 2(1) (d) of the Act. Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 clarifies the definition of Consumer as below:-

• consumer" means any person who, —

(i)buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiaryof such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;

Explanation. — For the purposes of this clause,"commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;

19. Since, the Complainant was the beneficiary in the present Complaint, he was thus well within his right to file the present Complaint as a consumer. Hence, we find no merit in the objection raised by the OP against the maintainability of the Complaint.
     
20. The OP also questioned the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to adjudicate the present Complaint. Section- 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, clarifies-

11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 1[does not exceed rupees five lakhs].

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the Complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 1[carries on business, or has a branch office or] personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the Complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 1[carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain: PROVIDED that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 1[carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

21. A bare perusal of the memo of parties clarifies as under-

Air France,

Tower 8 C, Cyber City,

DLF Phase-II,

Gurgaon – 122002.

(Haryana)

The Complainant has mentioned the OP Airline's address as 'DLF Phase-II Gurgaon Haryana'in the memo of parties as filed along with his Complaint, which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. No other branch office or alternate address is mentioned in his Complaint to confer territorial jurisdiction to this Forum. The OP has testified that the OP has an office in Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. However, neither 'DLF Phase-II Gurgaon Haryana' nor Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this District (South–West) Forum.

22. Since the OP does not reside or work for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, we are of the considered view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint. Hence, without going into the merit of the case, we feel constrained to dismiss the present Complaint without costs for want of territorial jurisdiction.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announced in the open Court on 09.09.2024.