Delhi

East Delhi

CC/919/2013

PREET JUNEJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 919/2013

 

	PREET JUNEJA (THROUGH MRS. TRIPTA ARORA) R/O A-188, ALPHA-I, GREATER NOIDA-201308 UTTAR PRADESH	….Complainant
Versus
	AIR INDIA (THROUH PRINCIPAL OFFICER/GM/DIRECTOR/MD/CMD) F-30, MALHOTRA BUILDING, JANPATH, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110001   ALSO AT:- 113, AIR LINES HOUSE, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110001	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution: 17.10.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 02.01.2023

Judgment Passed on: 06.01.2023

                       

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Mrs. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

ORDER

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the controversy with respect to jurisdiction of this Commission prior to disposing of the main complaint. 
2. Coming to the initial facts of the Complaint, which is filed by Mrs. Tripta Arora, Attorney of the Complainant Shri Preet Juneja against Air India, herein after referred as OP.  It is stated that the complainant is residing at A-1 88, Alpha 1, Greater Noida, UP and OP is stated to be having its office at Cannought Place, New Delhi. 
3. Now, coming to the facts in nutshell, the Complainant submits that he utilized the services of the OP for travelling from New Delhi to Frankfurt, Germany on 19.10.2011 along with certain parcel/luggage vide tag No.A1009497138 containing certain poster rolls for the value of Rs.1,40,803/- which were to be displayed at Exporters Exhibition Stall in Germany on 24.10.2011 but when the Complainant reached Frankfurt it was observed that parcel of the luggage had not arrived for which PIR (Property Irregularity Report) was registered at Frankfurt having reference No. FRAA121253/19OCT11/1811GMT dt. 19.10.11. Thereafter, certain negotiations were done and non-traceable report were issued by both the authorities i.e. Indian Airport dated 21.10.2011 and Frankfurt Airport also dated 21.10.2011.
4. Since, the Poster Rolls were of immense importance, the Complainant after having certain conversations with the manufacturer of posters at Noida, India, arranged second set of same Poster Rolls, booked the same through the next flight which reached Frankfurt and were handed over to the Complainant on 22.10.2011, however by stating that this is not the second/another set of posters rolls rather it was the previously sent poster rolls/luggage.  The Complainant claims that there was irregularity/deficiency in service on the part of OP by firstly not delivering the luggage which was booked on 19.10.2011 and secondly by delivering the second parcel/ luggage claiming that it was delivery against firstly booked parcel and a claim of Rs.4,44,596/- is sought from the OP i.e. Rs.1,93,596/- against the bill as was charged by the vendor for preparing the second parcel/poster rolls, Rs.2,00,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and Rs.21,000/- towards litigation and other charges.
5. The OP was served and filed its reply taking various preliminary objection i.e. w.r.t. application/complaint being time barred, w.r.t. this forum has no jurisdiction, w.r.t. concealment of material facts and further alleging that Complainant is trying to extort money from the OP. 
6. It is specifically mentioned in Para 16 of reply that neither of the parties reside or work for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum and therefore this forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction. As far as merits are concerned certain facts are admitted i.e. booking of passenger ticket by Complainant, booking of luggage, the luggage initially not reaching at Frankfurt Airport and complaints as raised by the Complainant on the Airport in India as well as Airport at Frankfurt.  However, it is submitted that the poster rolls were subsequently traced out on 21.10.2011 at IGI Delhi and the same were forwarded to Frankfurt on 22.10.2011 and the same were delivered to the Complainant on 22.10.2011 itself and although there was some delay yet there is no deficiency in service.
7. Both the parties filed their respective evidence and have argued at length and the first issue which is raised by the OP is w.r.t. jurisdiction of this Commission.
8. The Commission has perused the record. 
9. Admittedly, the Complainant is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, although it is stated so by Complainant in Para 17.  Simultaneously, there is specific denial by the OP w.r.t. territorial jurisdiction. 
10. Law is well settled.  The jurisdiction is the factor that gives the court the authority to deal with a particular case.  If the Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide a particular complaint then it does not have the power to pass any other order in respect of that case.  Jurisdiction is germane to the judicial hierarchical system and any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity.  In this regard, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pundalik Haribhau Chandekar v. Jagdish Dadaji Bind (supra) has laid down that delay cannot be condoned if the court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the complaint.  This seems quite logical also that a court which does not have jurisdiction over a particular matter cannot pass any order on any aspect of that matter. 
11. Keeping in view all these facts this Commission is of the opinion that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to dispose off the complaint and as such it would not be fair to decide any other issue like limitation, maintainability, compensation or extent thereof.
12. Therefore, the Commission hereby orders that the complaint be returned to the Complainant with direction to present the same before the appropriate commission having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The photocopy of the complaint/proceedings be retained and original be handed over to the Complainant with all annexures, reply/evidence, documents and order sheet. 
13. The photocopy be consigned to Record Room. 

 

3. opy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 06.01.2023.