BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 24 of 2016
Date of Institution : 21.1.2016
Date of Decision : 1.9.2016
1. Kulwant Singh, aged about 43 years son of Shri Harnam Singh;
2. Ranjeet Kaur, aged about 40 years wife of Shri Kulwant Singh, both residents of village Sant Nagar, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. Jet Airways Limited, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-4000099 India through its Managing Director/ Chairman.
2. Sukhwinder Singh, Proprietor Innovation Travels Private Limited, Moti Nagar, Delhi.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.T.M.Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
ORDER
It is the case of complainants that they wanted to visit abroad i.e. Paris as tourists for which they approached the op no.2 for the arrangement of their tour and after booking the tickets and to send the same at their residence deposited Rs.80,000/- through HDFC Bank, Sirsa and travelling tickets were issued on 24.10.2015. After receiving the tickets, it was learnt that they have to board the flight from Delhi to Mumbai in Jet Airways belonging to op no.1 and under their privity of contract, they shall be allowed to board the France Airways from where they shall be sent to Paris. After boarding the Jet Airways Delhi to Mumbai arrival of the complainants were 11.55 p.m. and when the complainant approached to France Airways as per endorsement in their ticket, they refused the boarding of complainant for the cause known to them and they flatly declined the boarding despite their requests. The complainants then went to the authorities of Jet Airways at 2.30 p.m. but they also shown their inability to help the complainants. The complainant had to stay at night in the Airport. Their hotel appointment was cancelled where they paid Rs.6800/- and all the appointment programmes were cancelled. On the next day at about 11.20 a.m. the complainants were allowed to be boarded in Jet Airways after charging additional amount of Rs.21,120/- which was obviously uncalled for and illegal. In this way, the complainants suffered harassment, mental tension and as such they are entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and also Rs.21,120/- which were charged by ops wrongly and illegally besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Op no.1 appeared and filed its written statement resisting the complaint. Thereafter, an application has been filed on behalf of op no.1 for rejection of complaint on the ground that neither the ops reside under the jurisdiction of this Forum nor cause of action arose in its jurisdiction. The complainants are the residents of village Sant Nagar, Distt. Sirsa and the ops do not have any office at village Sant Nagar or in Distt. Sirsa, hence this Forum has got no jurisdiction at all to try, entertain and to decide the present complaint. The complaint is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The Air France was the necessary party to be impleaded in the present complaint because the complainants travelled in the Air France Service from Mumbai to their destination, but they failed to implead the same. With these averments, rejection of complaint with costs has been prayed for.
3. The complainant resisted the application by filing reply in which it has been asserted that op no.2 is working for the op no.1 and booking of the company is online and tickets are delivered by the mail at the address of the complainants and hence defraud was committed at the place and residence of complainants. The travel in Air France Service from Mumbai to Paris was mentioned in the ticket which was duly issued by op no.1 and there is a privity of contract between op no.1 and Air France Airlines. There was no contract of the complainants with Air France Airlines, so it is not a necessary party to be impleaded and prayed that application be dismissed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. In the present case, the opposite party no.1 has its office at Mumbai and Opposite party no.2 has its office at Delhi. The complainants may have received tickets through online but actual cause of action accrued at Mumbai where from they were to travel to Paris but allegedly were not allowed to board the flight by France Airways. Thus, no cause of action accrued to the complainants within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, as per Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, “A complaint 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 the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carried on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain”. But, in the present complaint, the complainants have nowhere stated that the opposite parties are having their business or has a branch office within the local limits of Sirsa District. Thus, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Subodh Kumar Baheti Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. Revision Petition No.2335 of 2012 decided on 29.10.2012.
6. Keeping in view of our above discussion, the application has merit and therefore, same is hereby allowed. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, the complainants may approach the appropriate Forum for redressal, if so desires. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:1.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
