Haryana

StateCommission

A/1135/2016

AKHIL NATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRITISH AIRWAYS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JASKARAN SIBIA

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :  1135 of 2016

Date of Institution: 29.11.2016

Date of Decision :  16.01.2017

 

Akhil Nath S/o Sh. Atul Nath R/o A-51, Niramuddin East, New Delhi-110013

 

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

British Airways Pvt. Ltd. Company through its Director at DLF Plaza Tower, Ground Floor, Phase-I, DLF Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon.

 

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Jaskaran Sibia, Advocate for the appellant.

                                                  

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Akhil Nath- complainant has challenged the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

2.      Complainant filed complaint with allegations that he booked an E-ticket at the counter of McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas, USA to travel from Mc Carran Airport to Heathrow Airport London.  Ticket was purchased on 01.07.2013 and he was to travel on the same day.  He booked his luggage, two suitcases and was issued two luggage tags bearing No. BA 651 317 and BA 651 318. Upon reaching London, complainant did not find his suitcases and lodged the complaint.  Complainant stated that he was at London only for half a day and to travel back to Delhi, requested for delivery of luggage at Phuket, Thailand. Suitcases were delivered to the complainant on 06.07.2013 and on checking, he found that few items such as a belt and a tie gifted to him by his grandfather and a hand knitted muffler gifted to him by his grandmother besides some other items were missing.  Estimating the value of these items around U.S.$20,000/-.  The complainant lodged the complaint.  Opposite party offered eVoucher for Rs. 100.00 GBP however, complainant declined the offer and filed complaint seeking compensation of Rs.12,40,000/- (converting US Dollar 20,000/- to Indian Currency besides compensation).

3.      British Airways Pvt. Ltd. Company-opposite party in its written version, contested the complaint by raising various pleas that the complaint was barred in view of Rule 31(4) and 31(2) of the Third Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.  It was stated that the complainant booked his ticket from the counter of opposite party at MCCarran to travel from Las Vegas, USA to London subject to the conditions of carriage.  It was also stated that due to technical reasons the baggage of the complainant was not received by him at London.  However, the complainant requested to deliver his suitcases in Phuket, Thailand after 3^rd July, 2013 and the opposite party delivered the suitcases to the complainant in perfect condition.  It was stated that complainant accepted the luggage without reporting any shortage.  However, he started making correspondence after reaching Delhi.  It was further stated that as a matter of gesture of goodwill, opposite party offered 100.00 GBP which the complainant did not accept. Opposite party denied allegations and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.      District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint on account of territorial jurisdiction.

5.      We have heard parties and perused the file.

6.      The undisputed facts are that the complainant purchased the ticket at McCarran Airport Las Vegas from the counter of opposite party and boarded at Las Vegas Airport. The luggage was booked for London which was not delivered and as requested by the complainant, it was delivered to him at Phuket, Thailand. It has not been disputed that the complainant accepted the luggage without reporting any loss at the time of acceptance of luggage at Phuket.  It was only after reaching Delhi that he started correspondence with the opposite party.  Learned Counsel stated that since he made correspondence after reaching at Delhi and the Branch Office of opposite party was at Gurgaon therefore, District Forum at Gurgaon has jurisdiction. Indisputably the complainant purchased the ticket from Las Vegas and the luggage which was not delivered was at London and was delivered in Phuket on the request of the complainant. Neither the ticket was purchased from Gurgaon nor luggage was delivered at Gurgaon. Thus no part of cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of Gurgaon.  Therefore, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction.   The appeal is also dismissed.

 

Announced 16.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

DK