17.08.2016 Present:- Sh.Satwir Singh, counsel for complainant.

IPO worth Rs.100/- deposited with the complaint as fee be deposited in the relevant head as per notification dated.10.02.2005 by the Superintendent.

Heard on the point of admission of complaint.

Briefly, the case of the complainant is that, he got booked three tickets for himself, his wife and his minor child with opposite party No.1 on 15.9.2015 from Delhi to Kathmandu. On the fixed date, he alongwith his family members arrived at airport but he was not allowed to take departure as he had not proper identification but he was having identity card duly issued by competent authority of India, ration card and driving licence duly issued by competent authority whereas the wife and minor child were allowed to take departure.

It is alleged that it is clearly mentioned in the necessary directions issued by the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India that the other family members must have some proof of their identity with photographs and their relationship as family viz CGHS card, ration card, driving licence, ID case issued by school/college etc. The identity proof shown by the other family shows the relation of the complainant with his family members.

It is also alleged that opposite party No.1 refunded an amount of Rs.660/- whereas it has received a sum of Rs.4906.22 per ticket.

On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In order to attract the jurisdiction of this Forum, he has pleaded that he resides at Bathinda and got booked his tickets from Delhi to Kathmandu at Bathinda and travelling fair was transferred by him from Bathinda i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, this complaint.

We have heard learned counsel for complainant on the point of admission of complaint.

It is not disputed that at the time of admission of complaint, this Forum has to examine the territorial jurisdiction to admit the complaint or not. As mentioned above, the complainant wanted to attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that he resides at Bathinda and got booked the tickets at Bathinda.

To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has cited 2014 (1) CLT 179 M.D Air Deccan and Ors. Vs. Ram Gopal Aggarwal; 2011 (4) CPJ 314 Air India Vs. Dharmavaram Kottam Samarasimha Reddy and 2000 (2) CPJ 472 Meerut Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Attar Singh Gulia.

At the very outset, we would like to make it clear that the proportion of law laid down in the cited cases is not disputed, but every case its own facts and it is to be decided keeping in view the facts of the case. In this case, the complainant booked his tickets with opposite party No.1. He has not alleged any defect in the tickets got issued by opposite party No.1. Therefore, in these circumstances, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of opposite party No.1.

The grouse of the complainant is against opposite party No.2 because it has not allowed him to travel in the airline. He was to travel through airline of opposite party No.2 from Delhi to Kathmandu. Therefore, no part of cause-of-action has accrued to him against opposite party No.2 at Bathinda.

The conclusion is that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. Therefore, the complaint cannot be admitted. Accordingly, the copy of documents be retained and complaint in original alongwith copy of this order are directed to be returned to the complainant against the valid receipt. Copy of order be sent to the complainant free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

Announced:-

17.8.2016

(Jarnail Singh) (M.P.S Pahwa)

Member President