DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.672 of 2018

                                                Date of institution:  27.06.2018                                             Date of decision   :  27.07.2018

Sangeeta Jund wife of Shri DV Jund and mother of Archit Jund, resident of Flat No.203, GHS 69, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Manager, Jet Airways India Ltd., Civil Airport, Civil Air Terminal, Zirakpur Road, Jhurheri, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab 140306.

2.     Make My Trip (Corporate Office, Building No.5, Tower-B, P-5, P-4, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana-122002.

                                            ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri  L.R. Chadha, counsel for complainant.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant booked a return trip ticket for her son Mr.
Archit Jund for Singapore – Delhi on 15.10.2017 through Make My Trip with schedule given below:

        a.      Singapore to Delhi on 15^th Dec. 2017 – Rs.17094/-

        b.     Delhi to Singapore on 4^th Jan.2018 -Rs.10871/-

        c.     Other charges & Taxes – Rs.914/-

        d.     Total cost Rs.28879/-

                However, due to emergency in the family on account of death of close relative in India, son of the complainant had to come back to India from Singapore on 12.12.2017 instead of 15.12.2017. No suitable flight timing was available from Jet Airways. So son of complainant booked another airline flight from Singapore to India on 12.12.2017. Son of the complainant was not able to board Jet Airways flight from Singapore to Delhi on 15.12.2017. On arrival of Mr. Archit Jund in Delhi on 13.12.2017, complainant contacted Make My Trip helpline via SMS and called for asking about the cancellation of Singapore – Delhi flight scheduled trip of 15.12.2017. On not getting satisfactory answer, complainant sent e-mail to both the OPs on 14.12.2017. Response was received from Jet Airways through e-mail as if the grievance is forwarded to Reservation Info Desk Department with assurance that the later will get back to complainant shortly. However, complainant never received any communication from the Reservation Info Desk Department, despite sending of follow up reminder to Jet Airways on 18.12.2017. On 03.01.2018, when complainant was trying to complete web check for her son’s original return on 4^th January Delhi to Singapore return flight, then she realized as if she was not able to complete the web check in. On contact to OPs, complainant was disclosed that her son is not allowed to take Delhi to Singapore flight back on 04.01.2018 because he did not board his Singapore to Delhi flight on 15.12.2017. Such information was given to complainant for the first time at this moment only. Had the information been provided to complainant earlier, then she would have taken appropriate steps for taking another return flight well in advance. Earlier complainant had to forfeit her son’s bus ticket from Chandigarh to Delhi for 03.01.2018 and even she has to book another flight back to Singapore for 5^th January, 2018 from Delhi. Copies of booking of new bus ticket and new flight ticket alleged to be annexed with the complaint. Cause of action alleged to have occurred to complainant when OPs cancelled the return ticket from Delhi to Singapore on 03.01.2018 without any instructions from complainant and further when son of the complainant had to fly back from Delhi to Singapore.

2.             Arguments heard for admission purposes.

3.             Counsel for complainant was specifically asked as to where from booking got done or as to at what place credit/debit card was used for transmitting the ticket amount to OPs. Counsel for complainant remained unable to reply, but by asserting that this debit/credit card may be used at any place. Mention regarding the place where from the amount remitted by use of credit/debit card is not at all made in the complaint and as such it is obvious that complainant deliberately has not disclosed the place, where from the booking done or the amount through debit/credit card remitted. If complainant is resident of Panchkula, then debit/credit card would have been used by her at Panchkula and not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. OP No.1 has been impleaded as party without mentioning the role of OP No.1 Branch of Mohali and as such virtually impalement of OP No.1 is done for bringing the complaint in this Forum, but without actually disclosing as to where from the booking was done.

4.             After going through Para No.2 and other paras of complaint, it is made out that trip of son of complainant was from Singapore to Delhi as well as from Delhi to Singapore and if that be the position, then virtually due to non providing of service at Singapore regarding cancellation, the cause of action accrued to complainant either at Singapore or at Delhi and not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

5.             Copy of tax invoice shows as if reservation service for air transportation through OP No.2 availed for Archit Jund for 15.12.2017 for flight from Singapore to Delhi. Though request for cancellation of ticket through e-mail dated 14.12.2017 was sent, but it is not clear as to from where this e-mail transmitted and as such it is obvious that virtually complaint or the supporting documents do not disclose as to where cause of action accrued to complainant.

6.             In case titled as Rajendra Kumar Vs. Polskielinie Lotnicze Polish Airlines and others 1998 (3) CPJ 407 (Hon’ble Andhra Pardesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission), it has been held that when loss of luggage took place either at London or at Delhi during travel by air, then virtually no cause of action accrued to complainant at Hyderabad and as such complaint at Hyderabad not maintainable just because of purchase of ticket through an agent at Hyderabad. Likewise in case titled as Surender Kumar Jhmab Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. II (2015) CPJ 82 (NC), it has been held that if the medical insurance policy issued by Hyderabad Branch, but treatment got in Delhi, then District Forum at Sonepat will be having no jurisdiction because no part of cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of that Forum.  Same is the position in the case before us because here the place from where booking got done not mentioned and alleged deficient service rendered regarding the flight from Singapore to Delhi or from Delhi to Singapore, so this complaint deserves to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, but with the observations that complainant will be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum.

7.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. However, the complainant will be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant as per rules and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

July 27, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                       (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member