3. Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and then her counsel closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Amrik Singh, Station Manager of Air India Limited along with document Ex.R1 and then closed the evidence.
5. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely.
6. It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that online booking of ticket got done by remitting amount from Ludhiana and the ticket was to be received at Ludhiana and as such, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction. When counsel for complainant specifically asked in course of arguments, as to in which para of complaint and affidavit, he mentioned so that online booking took place from Ludhiana by remitting the amount from Ludhiana or the ticket was to be received at Ludhiana, then he failed to point out the same except of making reference of para no.7 of the complaint only. Para no.7 of the complaint just mentions as if this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint, but same does not discloses the facts and circumstances pointing out as to how this Forum has territorial jurisdiction. Even in the entire documents produced on record as Ex.C1 to Ex.C17, it is not at all mentioned anywhere that online booking of the ticket took place from Ludhiana by remitting the amount from Ludhiana or ticket was to be received at Ludhiana. As particulars disclosing cause of action for conferring jurisdiction on this Forum are not at all mentioned in the pleadings or proof and as such, certainly submission advanced by Sh.Baljit Sharma, Advocate representing Ops has force that this Forum has no jurisdiction, particularly when Ops have no branch office or regional office or any other office at Ludhiana. It was for the complainant to establish by pleading and proof that cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, but complainant failed to plead and prove, despite repeated asking by this Forum to do the needful by way of amendment and as such, complainant must suffer for the adamant attitude of his counsel for not disclosing the true facts in writing of pleadings & proof qua cause of action having arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Technicality must not come in the way of administration of justice in Consumer complaints, but despite that this Forum not to grant relief even in cases, where it has no territorial jurisdiction because it is well settled law that any order passed by this Forum beyond jurisdiction will be a nullity in law. In view of lack of particulars disclosing accrual of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, certainly complaint liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, particularly when the law cited by the counsel for Ops lays that if any part of cause of action not shown to have arisen within the jurisdiction of Forum, then order of Forum being without jurisdiction will be a nullity.
7. As per law laid down in case titled as M/s Finolex Pipes Limited vs. Mr.Sndeep Singh-1997(1)CPC-56(State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh) , if the respondent company has no office at Bhatinda, but at Pune and no cause of action much less part thereof, arose within the jurisdiction of Bhatinda, then the District Forum at Bhatinda will be having no jurisdiction even if the complainant is resident of Bathinda. So, bare mention of address of complainant of Ludhiana in the complaint or in the submitted affidavit will not confer any jurisdiction onthis Forum, particularly when complainant failed to show if any part of cause of action accrued within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum in circumstances that Ops have no branch office or any other office at Ludhiana.
8. As per law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Arup Kumar Bhattacharya vs. Kundu Tirtha Special and another-2004(1)CLT-615 , when a contract of tour package arrived at through telephonic call from Puralia with the office of Op at Calcutta by remitting payment from Calcutta, then in view of receipt of communication of acceptance at Calcutta, the Calcutta Forum will be having jurisdiction to try the matter. Further, after going through ratio of this case, it is made out that if the bank draft for making payment for tour package purchased at Puralia and deposited in the office of tour company at Calcutta, then in the event of arising any dispute, courts at Puralia will be having no jurisdiction because no part of cause of action accrued there just due to purchase of the bank draft there. In view of ratio of this case, it is obvious that even if the amount may have been remitted from Ludhiana (though not proved), despite that this Forum has no jurisdiction because communication of acceptance conveyed not from Ludhiana.
9. Even as per law laid down in case of M/s Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited vs. M/s Harish Chand Kochhar, Raj Paryag Hosiery Mills, Ludhiana-1996(2)CLT-583(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh), if complainant is resident of Ludhiana from where, he dispatched share certificates to the Ops having head office or branch office at Vadodara(Gujarat), then no cause of action accrued in the territorial jurisdiction of Forum at Ludhiana because the sent shares were expected to be received at Gujarat. Mere acceptance of receiving back the shares at Ludhiana will not show that any cause of action or part thereof accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum at Ludhiana is the law laid down in the above cited case. Ratio of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such, if complainant would have expected to receive the air ticket at Ludhiana, then due to that alone, this Forum cannot be said to be having jurisdiction, particularly when it is not the claim of complainant through complaint or submitted affidavit that air ticket was to be received by him at Ludhiana or that he deposited the amount at Ludhiana.
10. Even in case titled as Air India Limited and others vs. Prabhas Chandra Das and others-2009(2)CLT-656(Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack), it has been held that if complainant purchased air tickets for their journey from Kolkata to USA from Bhuneshwar under circumstances that airlines has no branch office or ticket counter in Orissa State and nor Ops resides in the State of Orissa or carrying on business in any part of Orissa, then District Forum at Cuttack in Orissa State will be having no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint merely because complainant resides in Cuttack. Ratio of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case before us in view of the above discussion.
11. Benefit from ratio of case titled as Manohar Lal Sarin, Senior Advocate vs. M/s Emirates, New Delhi through its Country Manager-2010(1)RCR(Civil)-170(State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh) can’t be gained by the counsel for the complainant because after going through para no.3 of the cited case, it is made out that complainant purchased the tickets from agent of OP1 by making payment through credit card at Chandigarh and specific plea taken in the complainant of that case. However that case is not pleaded and nor the averment in that respect made in the submitted affidavit Ex.CA or in any of the produced documents and as such, complainant virtually seeking creation of jurisdiction of this Forum without pleading the facts showing the accrual of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In view of lack of proof and of pleading qua accrual of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, certainly this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction because journey was to be undertaken from Amritsar to Dubai and moreover, email ticket was sent by Ops to the complainant at email address mentioned in the form Ex.R1 submitted by the complainant herself. That email address given in Ex.R1 is as under:-
12. Even in case titled as M/s Emirates(Airlines) vs. Raj Kumar Sharma-2014(3)CLT-17(N.C.), it was found that if no evidence produced on record that copy of passbook was given by the complainant to Ops and the submitted passport does not contain any contact number and nor in the complaint, it is pleaded anywhere that contact number was supplied to the Ops, then if Ops failed to intimate the complainant regarding rescheduling of flights, then blame to Ops cannot be attributed regarding rescheduling of flights. Ratio of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, particularly when pleading and proof regarding accrual of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum absolutely is missing. As this Forum not proved to be having jurisdiction and as such, complaint merits dismissal with the observations that complainant may avail remedy from the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction in the matter.
13. Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed with observations that complainant may avail remedy from the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction in the matter. No order as to costs and compensation. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.
14. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Param Jit Singh Bewli) (G.K.Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum
Dated:26.10.2017
Gurpreet Sharma.
