BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
     ERNAKULAM.        
                                                      Date of filing    :  23.06.2015
                                                Date of Order  :  07.01.2016

Present :-
            Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose,        President.        
            Shri. Sheen Jose,                Member.
            Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari,        Member.            

C.C. No. 397/2015
Between
        
 
V.K. Ramdas      ::     Complainant        
Aged 56, Sayiram, Tripunithura
(now residing at) Door No. B 70,
Vaishnavam, North Girinagar, Kadavanthra, Kochi – 682 020.        (By Adv. Shri V.V.Sadanandan,
 Thaliyath Bldg., St. Benedict
 Road, Cochin - 18)    
And
 
1. Fly Manthra      ::    Opposite Party       
    E-160, Sector 63, Noida, Delhi
    -201309 rep. by Director,
    Navdeep Munjal
2. Fly Mathra,
    E-160, Sector 63, Noida,
    Delhi – 201309 rep. by Director
    Avdeep Munjal          (Absent)    

 O R D E R

V,K. Beena Kumari, Member

      A  brief statement of facts of this consumer complaint is as follows :

        Shri V.K. Ramdas, the complainant in this case booked domestic tickets for himself and his wife through online ticket reservation portal maintained by the opposite parties Fly Manthra, to travel from Bangalore to Kochi,on 29th April, 2015 and an  amount  of Rs. 6696/-was paid to the opposite parties towards ticket fare on 29.04.2015. The air tickets were received by the complainant on 25.03.2015.  But when the complainant reached the  airport with the confirmed e-ticket on  29.04.2015, the  complainant  found variation in the booking date made by his brother Vinay Kumar and on checking with the opposite party there was no response.  On the next     day Shri Deepak an executive  of the opposite party reaffirmed  the booking to 29.04.2015 vide e-mail communication.  But the complainant had to purchase a fresh ticket for a higher amount i.e. for Rs. 27,423/- incurring additional expenditure.  Therefore the complainant  sent a legal notice to the opposite parties in the e-mail ID  info @ fly manthra . com on 27.05.2015 to show cause why further action should not be taken against the opposite parties but there was no response.  Therefore this complaint is filed seeking direction  from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 34,119/- to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization along with  compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the mental agony suffered and costs of this proceedings.                 
    2. Notices were issued from this Forum to the opposite parties and the notices were served on opposite parties 1 and 2 on 30,.06.2015 at 15.51 hours.  The opposite parties did not make  appearance  before this Forum in response to the  notices received by them.  Therefore they were set exparte.  The complaint is disposed of exparte after hearing the complainant.

    3. The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence furnished by the complainant marked as Exhibits A1 to A5 and the exparte proof affidavit furnished  by the complainant.  There  was no appearance of the opposite parties either in person or through any representative. Hence no evidence  adduced on the part of the opposite parties.

    4.  The Counsel for the parties were heard.

    5. From the  pleadings of the complainant,  the following issues came up for the consideration of this Forum :    
Whether   this   complaint  is  maintainable  before  this
 Forum ?
Whether  the  complainant  has  proved   deficiency  in
service on the part of the opposite parties ?
If so, whether  the opposite  parties are liable to refund
the ticket fare of Rs. 34,119/- along with compensation
and costs of proceedings ?
Relief and costs.
    6.  Issue No. (i) :  
              The  complainant  through his brother booked  3 domestic tickets for himself and his family through online ticket reservation portal maintained  by the  opposite parties Fly Manthra to travel from Bangalore to Kochi on 29.04.2015.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directors of Fly Manthra whose office is functioning at Noida in Delhi.  Opposite parties are not having any office in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  
    Section 11(2) of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 describes the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum as shown below :
     “ Section 11(2)  :
            A  complainant   shall  be  instituted  in  a  District  Forum  within
            the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -

                (a) the opposite  party  or each  of the opposite parties, where
           there are more than one,at the time of institution of the complaint,
           actually  and voluntarily resides  or (carries on  business or has a
           branch office or) personally works for gain, or

               (b) any   of  the  opposite  parties,  where  there are more than
           one, at   the  time  of   institution   of   the   complainant,  actually
           and    voluntarily    resides,  or  (carries    on   business   or   has
           branch  office),  or   personally  works   for  gain, provided that in
           such   case  either  the  permission of the District Forum is given,
          or  the  opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business
          or  have  a  branch office),  or   personally  work  for gain, as  the
          case may be, acquiesce in such institution ; or
 
               (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

               Objects and Reasons -Clause 8 (old) seeks to  amend section
           11  to  enhance the  jurisdiction  of the District Forum to entertain
           complaints  where  the  value  of  the  goods  or services and the
           compensation  claimed  does  not  exceed  rupees   twenty lakhs.
           This   will  be  more  convenient  for  the  complainants  and  also
           reduce the number of complaints filed with the State Commission.

In the  instant case the office of the Fly Manthra is being  operated from Delhi and the opposite parties 1 and 2 Directors of Fly Mantha are not residing  within the local limits of this Forum.  For the above reasons this Forum lacks  territorial jurisdiction under section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act  to decide this consumer dispute.  Therefore we find that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Therefore the 1st issue is decided against the complainant.                       
     7. Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii)  :
              Having decided the issue No. (I) against the complainant we are not inclined to decide the  issues (ii) and (iii).
     In the result,   the consumer complaint is found not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.  Hence dismissed with no costs.
      Pronounced in the open Forum on this the  7th day of January,2016.

                                                   Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.                                       Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.
                          Sd/-  Sheen Jose, Member.

                                                           Forwarded/By Order

                                                        Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch of the Order   :
By Hand / By Post                      :

                
A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

 
               Exhibit A1
               Exhibit A2
               Exhibit A3  
               Exhibit A4               
               Exhibit A5                     ::
  ::
  ::
  ::
  ::    E-Ticket
Contact details
Letter
Booking reference
GMail    

                                                                                                                      
Opposite party's Exhibits         :-   Nil     
              
             
Depositions                                :-   Nil

                                    =========