Delhi

New Delhi

CC/32/2016

Manoharlal Wadhwani - Complainant(s)

Versus

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002

 

Case No.CC/32/2016                                Dated:

In the matter of:

 

SH. MANOHARLAL WADHWANI,

11/25, EAST PATEL NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110008.

 

                                                  ……..COMPLAINANT

    

VERSUS

  

1. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES

TOWER 8C, 8^TH FLOOR,

DLF PHASE II, CYBER CITY GURGAON-122008.

   

2. DELTA AIRLINES,

    TOWER 8C, 8^TH FLOOR,

DLF PHASE II, CYBER CITY GURGAON-122008.

 

 

 

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTIE

 

MEMBER: H M VYAS

ORDER 

The brief facts in the complaint are that the complainant aged 82 years had undergone open heart surgery and suffering from various ailments. His son using portal of OP-2 purchased a business class tickets for him for journey ex-Delhi-Amsterdam-New York-Amsterdam-Delhi w.e.f. 08.06.2015 to 10.06.2015. Deficiency in service and breach of contract by the OP have been alleged and prayed for compensation of 20 lakh with interest; In addition to such compensation, the OPs were also independently of the breach of contract and deficient service liable to suo moto pay Euro 700/ under notification EU 261/2004 for delay in flight.

        Notice was issued to the OPs and written statement was filed but the copy of annexures were not supplied to complainant despite granting opportunities by the Forum. None appeared for OPs on 07.09.2016, 19.10.2016 and 08.11.2016 and as such the defence of OP was struck off on 08.11.2016. thereafter on 09.12.2016, the complainant and OPs counsel appeared. The complainant candidly stated on 27.02.2017 that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction. We have heard the complainant on this issue. This objection of territorial jurisdiction has also been taken by the OPs as preliminary objection in the WS.

        The material placed before us and the arguments addressed show that the complainant got booked tickets for him from OP at DLF Phase II Gurgaon and not in Delhi. The cause of action also arose at a place not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

        We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act reads as below:-

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 1[does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs]. (not relevant as it deals with the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction).

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits 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 (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 the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a 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.

 

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 passed following orders:

“Ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office

at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

 

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant for filing it before appropriate and competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant along with documents filed along with the court fee certificate be returned to the complainant against receipt after obtaining a copy of the same and then file be consigned to the record room.

 

In view of the facts on record and above legal position, it is clear that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant with annexures against acknowledgement for filing before competent Forum in accordance with law. A copy of the complaint was kept on record.

           This order be sent to the server (www.confonet.nic.in).

A copy of this order be sent to complainant free of cost by post.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 07.03.2017

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                      (H M VYAS)                                          (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                                            MEMBER                                                    MEMBER