Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member :
This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 8.4.2011 passed in consumer complaint No. 105/2009, Shri Tanaji Vishnu Mandlik V/s Choudhari Yatra Company Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (the ‘Forum’ in short). The consumer complaint stands dismissed and feeling aggrieved by the original complainant preferred this appeal.
It is the case of the appellant/original complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) that he and his wife had undertaken a pilgrimage tour organized by respondent/original opponent Choudhary Yatra Company Pvt.Ltd. at Nasik. Said tour was started from Nasik on 9.3.2008 and ended at Nasik on 13.3.2008. In the course of said tour, on 9.3.2008, the Bus in which the complainant and his wife were traveling on Patana-Muzafapur Road near Goralgaon, met with an accident. It is not disputed that the complainant and his wife had received immediate medical treatment at the Govt. Hospital and at the Hospital of Dr. K.A.AAcharya at Gaya. Thereafter, they participated in further tour programme and returned to Nasik as scheduled. However, it is further alleged on behalf of the complainant that his wife Leelavati suffered a severe mental shock as a result of said accident and thereafter, was taken from time to time to the hospital. During the period from 5.4.08 to 5.6.2008, she was admitted at the Hospital at Pune and ultimately, died on 5.6.2008. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the travel company, consumer complaint was filed claiming compensation of `8,98,860/-.
The opponent appeared and denied that there is any deficiency in service on its part. It is further submitted on 9.3.2008 around 1.30 a.m. suddenly said bus drifted towards left side on the road and dashed against in an attempt to save the cattle which suddenly came across it. Complainant’s wife received perhaps some injuries and therefore, complainant and his wife were immediately given medical treatment and thereafter, complainant and his wife continued with the tour which was resumed soon thereafter and was completed as per the tour programme. By way of better management practice, they had issued a letter of apology to all travelers and complainant is just taking an advantage of the same.
Heard both sides. In the instant case, hardly there is any deficiency in service is either alleged or established. So called negligence of the driver of the bus responsible for the accident cannot be taken as deficiency in service on the part of the travel company, within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’ for brevity). It is not the case of complainant that the bus was not worthy of travel. It is also not the case that the driver of the bus was unskilled driver. Complainant also did not rebut the facts narrated by the opponent as to how an accident occurred when suddenly a cattle came in front of the bus.
Furthermore, the complaint is filed at Pune Forum which perse has no territorial jurisdiction to try this consumer complaint. It being a jurisdiction point, the Forum was under obligation to examine the issue while assuming the jurisdiction to settle the consumer dispute. The travel company is from Nasik. The tour was started from Nasik and ended at Nasik. Therefore, it is the Nasik Forum which may have jurisdiction to entertain this dispute.
For the reasons stated above, we find no fault in the impugned order dismissing the consumer complaint. Thus, finding appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order :
O R D E R
Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced dated 7th December 2011.
