PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1) By this complaint the Complainants have prayed an amount of Rs.17,45,000/-

from the Opposite Parties towards mental and financial hardship caused to the

Complainant and their relatives and cost of Rs.10,000/- towards this complaint. The

Complainants have also prayed other compensation which may be deemed proper by

this Forum in favour of the Complainants.

2) According to the Complainant, they had appointed Opposite Party No.1 to

make the formalities of Visa and flights tickets for Ramzan Umrah Pilgrimage for the

year 2007 and made due payment at Jodhpur. It is however, alleged that the

complaint is within time and within the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is alleged that

the Complainants gave their passport and other documents to the Opposite Party No.1

in June, 2007 for arranging visa and flight tickets for Ramzan Umrah year 2007. The

Opposite Party No.1 was responsible for doing all the formalities for the same. It is

submitted that for seven Complainants an amount of Rs.2,11,400/- i.e. Rs.3,200/- for

each was paid to the Opposite Party No.1 at Jodhpur. According to the Complainants,

the Opposite Party No.1 had made all the formalities and gave visa and flight tickets

of Saudi Arabian Airlines to the Complainant s on 09/09/2007. All the Complainants

had to travel jointly from Jodhpur and back to Jodhpur. There was no group leader

but all the Complainants went to Umrah in their individual capacity.

3) According to the Complainants, The departure of the Complainant from

Jodhpur to Mumbai by train was on 11/09/2007 and the flight from Mumbai to Jeddah

was on 13/09/2007 by Sautdi Arabian Airlines and return from Jeddah to Mumbai was

by flight No.SV742SU14102007OK MS975B at 23.15. The documents to that effect

issued by Opposite Party No.5 and 4 are Annexure- ‘1’ & ‘2’. It is alleged that as per

C.No284/2009

3

confirmed OK flight SV742SU, Dtd.14/10/2007 scheduled at 23.15 hrs. The

Complainants reported on 14/10/2007 at 18 hrs. at international Airport, Jedah for

weighing and snagging the luggage. It is alleged that however, the staff of the

Opposite Party No.5 refused to allow by saying that the flight for Mumbai was full.

According to the Complainant, thereafter they approached to the Executive Supervisor

of Opposite Party No.5 who asked to approach an officer by name Mr. Mohhmed

Khwaja. It is submitted that he did not respond to the Complainants to accommodate

in the schedule flight. It is submitted that in such attempt much chaos had been

caused at the airport amongst male and female Complainants and airport authorities.

The airport authorities asked the Complainants to get re-reservation for 17/10/2007

flights. The Complainant thereafter, obtained re-reservation OK slip for the flight on

17/10/2007 at 9.50 hrs. the copy of the said re-reservation of OK slip is Annexure- ‘3’.

The Complainants raised doubt to the staff of airlines authority that such incident of

14/10/2007 flight may not be repeated again on 17/10/2007 flight. The Complainants

took out a computer statement which is Annexure 4.

4) According to the Complainants they again approached to the Executive

Supervisor of the airlines authority to provide boarding, lodging, etc. till 17/10/2007.

It is submitted that the request made by the Complainants for the above things was not

accepted by airline authorities. It is alleged that the Complainants helplessly stayed at

lounge floor without bread and blanket in sever cold. It is alleged that on 15/10/2007

the Complainants approached to Haj Ministry of Airport who finally arranged a hotel

through travel agency M/s. Shaa’ ier to development Inc Jedhah where the

Complainants arranged their foods at their own cost till 17/10/2007.

5) According to the Complainants, there was another scenario in India, Mumbai

where relatives of 7 Complainants were waiting to receive the Complainants from

13/10/2007 as the Complainants were having confirmed scheduled time SV 742

dtd.14/10/2007. It is submitted that they had also faced hardship in staying at Mumbai

till 17/10/2007. They had to pay hotel rent and spent for eating expenditure. Their

railway tickets were also required to get cancelled. It is alleged that one Complainant

was admitted in ICU of Ajiyad Hospital, Makkah Mukarrana, Bed No.7,

dtd.01/10/2007 due to heart attack. Copy of its proof is Annexure - ‘5’. It is

submitted that he was feeling very uncomfortable at airport due to un-human behavior

and mismanagement of airlines in those 4 hard days.

C.No284/2009

4

6) It is the case of the Complainants that on reaching at Jodhpur the Complainants

wrote letter dtd.16/11/2007 to the Opposite Party No.3 to 5 and communicated the

hardship caused to Umrah Pilgrims due to not providing boarding in OK flight SV 742

dtd.14/10/2007 of Saudi Arabian Airlines and requested to pay compensation towards

breakfast, lunch, evening tea, dinners for three days at Rs.12,705/- as well as the

expenditure incurred by the relatives of the Complainant i.e. 7 persons at Mumbai for

the aforesaid caused to the tune of Rs.4,665/-. The Complainants also requested

difference of railway tickets to the tune of Rs.910/-, loss of earning of 7 persons due to

stay at Mumbai to the tune of Rs.4,500/- they also requested to pay compensation of

Rs.1,47,000/- for each Complainant to the tune of Rs.16,17000/- and compensation of

7 relatives @ Rs.15,000/- each to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Complainants totally

claimed Rs.17,45,000/- from the Opposite Parties. The Complainant also made

correspondence with Secretary of UMAS, Jodhpur and the Opposite Party No.3

replied to the correspondence made by the Complainant. The copies of the said

correspondence are Annexure - ‘7’ & ‘8’.

7) According to the Complainants, the General Sales Agent of Opposite Party

No.4 & 5 M/s. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai by letter

dtd.20/12/2007 as per Annexure - ‘2’ has admitted that the Complainants were booked

their tickets for travel on 14/10/2007 but on request of group leader Mr. Habiboor

Rahman Khilji the booking was changed to 17/10/2007. According to the

Complainant, in fact there was neither Umrah Pilgrims of such name with

Complainants nor group leader. By letter dtd.07/03/2008 they had stated that neither

there was group leader of Umrah pilgrims nor he was Umrah Pilgrim and they had

done formalities for visa and flight tickets for Umrah in Ramzan 2007 through M/s.

Zaireen travel services Ltd. Mumbai and they had never made request to change flight

(Annexure - ‘9’). According to the Complainants it is the airlines who changed the

flight at their own accord which caused mental and financial hardship to the

Complainants. The Complainants have therefore, prayed that as the Opposite Parties

failed to render service to the Complainants they are entailed to the compensation as

claimed in para 1 of this order.

8) The Opposite Party No.1 though served with the notice remained absent. The

complaint therefore, proceeded ex-parte against Opposite Party No.1.

C.No284/2009

5

9) The Opposite Party No.2 contested the claim by filing written statement. It is

contended that the complaint is misconceived, false, bogus, bad-in-law and has filed

with malicious intention. It is contended that the Complainants have suppressed the

material facts that they had filed same complaint against the same Opposite Parties in

District Forum at Jodhpur. The said complaint was rejected by District Forum,

Jodhpur for lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Complainants have

come with unclean hands before this Forum and therefore, the complaint is liable to be

dismissed. It is contended that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of

action had arisen in Mumbai because the flight of Saudi Arabian Airlines from

Mumbai to Jeddah on 13/09/2007 was opted by the Complainants is not disputed. It is

contended that the grievance is regarding flight at Jeddah and therefore, cause of

action arose at Jeddah and as such this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and

decide this complaint. It is contended that no money transaction have been exchanged

between the Complainants and the Opposite Parties at Mumbai and as such no cause

of action had taken place at Mumbai. It is submitted that there are no averment

against the Opposite Party No.2 and therefore, the complaint against the Opposite

Party No.2 suffers from misjoinder of parties. It is therefore, prayed that the Opposite

Party No.2 be deleted from this complaint. It is contended that the Complainant has

not fulfilled the requirement as stated in Sec.12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act,

as well as under Sec.11(2)(b) of the Act. It is contended that this Forum has no

territorial jurisdiction as the Opposite Party No.1 resides at Jodhpur and does not have

branch office at Mumbai. The Opposite Party No.3 has it’s office at New Delhi and

does not have office at Mumbai. It is contended that the complaint against Opposite

Party No.2 is not maintainable. The Opposite Party No.2 has denied the allegations

made in the complaint. It is contended that the Complainants have made false,

baseless, vague averment that 7 relatives of the Opposite Parties were waiting at

Mumbai without their specific details. It is submitted that there is no deficiency on

the part of Opposite Party No.2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against

Opposite Party No.2.

10) The Complainants have deleted the names of Opposite Party Nos.3, 5 & 6 by

filing application to that effect.

11) The Opposite Party No.4 filed written statement and contested the claim. The

C.No284/2009

6

Opposite Party No.4 raised the same contentions as raised in the written statement

filed by Opposite Party No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12) The Complainant Nos.1,3, 4 & 7 filed affidavit of evidence. The Opposite

Party No.2 filed affidavit of evidence of Mohmed Siddiqui and Opposite Party No.4

filed affidavit of Akhtar Qureshi, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No.4.

The Complainants and Opposite Party No.2 & 4 filed their written arguments. We

heard Shri. Nahar Mahala, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and Shri. Gaurang

Nallawala, Ld.Advocate on behalf of Shri. U.B. Waviker, Ld.Advocate for the

Opposite Party No.2 and Ld.Advocate Shri.Baliram Kamble, for Opposite Party No.4.

We have perused the documents filed on record.

13) While considering the claim lodged by the Complainants it is necessary to be

seen that in this complaint the Complainants have not complied the requirement as

provided under Sec.12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainants

have not sought permission of this Forum as provided under Sec.12(1)(c) of the Act

which says that one or more consumers, where they are numerous consumers having

the same interest may file complaint to the District Forum, with permission of District

Forum, on behalf of or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested. It is true that as

per the proviso of Sec.12 of the Act, the complaint shall not be rejected under the

sub-section unless the opportunity of being heard has been given to the Complainant.

In this complaint the Opposite Party No.2 & 4 in their written statement have raised

specific contentions but the Complainants have not satisfied how their complaint is

maintainable without seeking the permission as provided under Sec.12(1)(c) of the

Act. We therefore, hold that on this count the complaint is liable to be rejected.

14) Even assuming that the complaint as it is can be decided on merits and if we

consider the pleadings in the complaint, we hold that the Complainants have failed to

prove their claim made in the complaint. The Complainants have not placed on record

any documentary proof showing that they had spent Rs.12,705/- towards their

expenditure at Jedah as alleged in para 7A of the complaint. They have also not

produced any proof regarding the expenditure of the relatives who came at Mumbai to

receive them for 3 days of Rs.4,665/- as claimed in para 7B of the complaint. The

Complainants have not produced any proof regarding the cancellation of railway

tickets and extra expenditure incurred by them due to change of flight as mentioned in

C.No284/2009

7

para 7C of the complaint. The Complainants have also failed to prove how they are

entitled to receive Rs.4,500/- for the loss of earning of 7 persons who came to receive

them at Mumbai and stayed at Mumbai as claimed in para 7D of the complaint. The

Complainants claimed compensation in para 7E(i) @ Rs.1,47,000/- for each

Complainant and total amount of Rs.16,17,000/- as well as Rs.1,50,000/- in total for 7

relatives who came to receive the Complainants at Mumbai as claimed in para 7E (ii)

of the complaint, however, no specific evidence and proof is adduced and placed on

record to corroborate the said claim against the Opposite Parties. We therefore, hold

that the contention raised by the Opposite Parties No.2 & 4 that the Complainants

have raised false, baseless, vague claim without any proof can be accepted. The

Complainants have not given the names of the relatives. The Complainants have also

not produced any record showing that 7 tickets were booked from Mumbai to Jodhpur

and new tickets were required to be obtained by them. No affidavit of Complainants

relatives is placed on record to prove the claim made in the complaint. Furthermore,

the Complainants have suppressed the fact that they had earlier filed complaint before

District Consumer Forum, Jodhpur regarding the claim made in this complaint. The

Complainants in our view have suppressed the material facts and not come with clean

hands before this Forum. Furthermore, from the letter placed on record of Indo-Saudi

Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd., dtd.20/12/2007, it appears that in the said letter the said

travel services made it clear to the manager Mohasin M. Al-Garni Manager, Saudia –

India, Saudi Arabian Airline Mumbai that as regards the complaint made by the

Complainants regarding the change booking it was informed that due to some

communication gap of understanding and on the request of the group leader the

booking was changed to 17 October and the Complainants might not be aware of the

changes made by the Group Leader and they went to Airport for 14 October, flight. In

the said letter it is also mentioned that as regards to their boarding and lodging till 17th

October the same was taken care off by the Umrah Agent – Mrs. Shaa’ ier Tour

Development I & C for which they have already debited their agent in India, Mrs.

Zarin Travel Service and collected the amount from their security deposit. In the said

letter it is also mentioned that in view of the above, it will be observed that the said

Pilgrim were taken care of by airlines and the Umrah Agent. Considering the said

correspondence placed on record in the complaint, we find that the claim made in the

complaint against the Opposite Parties is totally untenable. The Complainants have

C.No284/2009

8

not proved by any documentary evidence that they are entitled to the claim made in

para 7 of the complaint made against the Opposite Parties.

15) From the facts alleged in the complaint it appears that changes of flight from

14/10/2007 to 17/10/2007 were done by the Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6 but the

Complainants have deleted them from this complaint and therefore, the claim of the

complaints in this complaint against Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6 cannot be entertained.

Furthermore, the said cause regarding changes of dates in flight had taken place at

Jeddah and not at Mumbai and within the jurisdiction of this Forum and on that count

the territorial jurisdiction cannot be said vested with this Forum. We therefore, hold

that the present complaint on the basis of cause of action shown in the complaint is

barred by territorial jurisdiction also and this Forum has no power to entertain and

decide the claim made in this complaint. The advocate for the Complainants have

placed on record the Government of India, circular dtd.06/08/2010 issued by the

Director General of Civil Aviation and the authorities in the case of General Manager

(India), Bajaj Bhavan V/s. Sri. Arun Kumar Sircar (SC Case No.FA.243/2011),

decided by the State Commission West Bengal, dtd.02/01/2012 and the order passed

by the State Commission Delhi in Appeal No.492/2000 in the case of M/s. Alliance

Air Ltd. V/s. Daljit Singh Nirman, decided on 28/11/2006, however, in our view, in

view of the above facts and the discussion, the claim made in the complaint is not at

all proved by the Complainants. The Complainants have also not proved any

deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, as such we hold that the

Complainants are not entitled to any reliefs claimed in this complaint. In the result the

following order is passed –

O R D E R

i. Complaint No.284/2009 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

ii. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.