DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/111/2015

No. DF/ Central/

Shushma Bal w/o Sh. Karan Bal,

R/O. H. No. 206, Supreme Enclave,

Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi-110091

Smt. Sudha Uppal w/o Lt. Sh. Darshan Lal Uppar

R/O H. No. 170, Supreme Enclave,

Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi-110091                                    …..COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

M/s. Cox & King Ltd.

Hotel Lavista, 938/3, Ilahi Bux Road,

Nai Wala Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

Also at: Turner Morrison Building,

16, Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001

Through its Principal Officer/Incharge                                 …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                 Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

                 Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member

ORDER

Rekha Rani, President

1.       Instant complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 inter alia pleading therein that the complainant booked a tour package called Super Saver Andaman Tour with AIR Ex. New Delhi (6 days/5 night) 3 nights Port Blair and 2 nights Havelock) from 25.01.2015 issued by M/s. Cox & Kings Ltd. (in short OP).  Since name of the complainant no. 2 Sudha Uppal was incorrectly mentioned as Subha Uppal as a result she was not allowed to board the flight to Port Blair.  OP is therefore guilty of mentioning incorrect name in the air ticket on account of which she suffered not only monetary loss but also mental pain and agony.  Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP who inter-alia pleaded that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and that only the Forum at Mumbai has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter.  On merits it is denied that name of the complaint no. 2, Sudha Uppal was incorrectly mentioned as Subha Uppal on account of which she was not able to board the flight.  It is pleaded that Subha Uppal was the name which was provided by complainant no. 1 herself to the sales officer of the OP over phone at the contact centre.  It is further stated that complainant missed the flight having reached late at check in counter resulting in denial of boarding the flight.

          We have heard Sh.Pralad Kumar, counsel for complainants and Sh. Vishal Sharma, proxy counsel for OP. 

OP has vehemently stated that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.

          Order dated 13.08.2018 indicates that leared counsel for OP stated that OP received payment for the booked package at its Bombay office.  Counsel for complainant sought adjournment to satisfy that this forum has territorial jurisdiction.  On next date of hearing, i.e. 13.09.2018, OP filed an affidavit wherein it was mentioned:

“3.     That it is pertinent to mention here that the Opposite Party received the online booking payment from the Complainant in its Mumbai office through ICICI online gateway for which credit has been receive in TM Branch, ICICI Bank, Nariman Point, Branch account and some cash has been received in Connaught Place office of Delhi Branch of Cox and Kings.”

It is also stated:

“5.     That the head office of the Opposite is in Mumbai i.e. Turner Morrison Building, 16, Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001, from where the entire official work regarding online transaction etc. operated and coordinated by the Company.”

5.       The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. In the said judgment it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting.   It was observed that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arises.

6.       Reference may also be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula  allowed the complaint.   In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical (supra). Order of State Commission directing return of complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the National Commission while observing that simply because Head Office of HUDA was in Panchkula , Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.

Complainants are residents of Mayur Vihar.  OP received payment for the booked tour package at Bombay and some cash was received in its Connaught Place branch.  No part of cause of action is shown to be accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum.  The complaint is returned with the liberty to file the same in the forum having appropriate jurisdiction after retaining a copy of the same. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

                   Announced on this  _____   Day of  _____ 2018.