By Smt.Padmii Sudheesh, President
It is the case of complainant that the complainant is employed in Bahrain and the 2nd respondent issued a air ticket for Cochin-Baharain flight of 1st respondent for 11th November 2005 at 4pm. At the time of issuing the ticket the 2nd respondent assured that the ticket was confirmed. But the 1st respondent refused the journey and returned the ticket after paying an endorsement ‘DNB’ which means ‘Denied Boarding’. So he was caused to suffer mental agony, financial loss etc. Hence the complaint.
2. The 2nd respondent filed counter by stating that the ticket was confirmed and there was no deficiency in service from them.
3. The 1st and 3rd respondents filed their detailed version and also challenged the maintainability of the complaint. According to them the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.
4. The only point for consideration is maintainability of the case before the Forum.
5. Even if the complaint was filed in the year 2007, due to heavy pendency of work the matter is come for judgement only now. Elaborate evidence was taken and documents were also marked from both side. But this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.
6. It can be seen that the complaint was filed by stating that the cause of action has arose on 9/11/05 as on which date the 2nd respondent issued the flight ticket. If the flight ticket was not confirmed and the 2nd respondent issued the same under the pretext of confirmed the complaint will definitely maintainable before this Forum, because the 2nd respondent is in Thrissur. But the complainant was denied journey not because of the defect of ticket issued by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent denied the boarding by alleging that the complainant had reported at the check-in counter for the flight only at 14.59 hours i.e. just one hour prior to the scheduled departure. So the denial of journey was only because of the alleged act of 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is Air India, Nedumbassery office which is situated in Ernakulam district. There is no cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
7. In 2012 (3)CPR NC 352 it is held that the question of jurisdiction can be decided and can be raised at any stage even at execution stage. In Rajkumar Vs. M/s.M.G.Motors the Hon’ble National Commission has held like that.
8. In the result the complaint is dismissed with direction to approach the proper Forum.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 1st day of November 2012.
