BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No: 325/2000 Filed on 14/06/2000
Dated: 15..07..2009
Complainant: Dr. G.C. Gopala Pillai, Managing Director, KINFRA, T.C.14/1026, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. G.S. Reghunath)
Opposite party: Indian Airlines Ltd., Airlines House, New Delhi – 110 001. Represented by its Managing Director.
(By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 12..03..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05.2009, the Forum on 15..07..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER:
Facts giving rise to the filing of the complaint are the following: The complainant, who is the Managing Director of Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, as a part of his official duty had to travel in flight No.IC 167 Delhi – Bombay flight on 15/12/1999. On Board, the passengers were supplied with Onjus (orange juice) and the complainant also consumed Onjus, manufactured by M/s. Enkay Texofood Industries Ltd. Immediately after consuming the Onjus, the complainant developed stomach problems and sickness. On verification, the complainant found that the date of expiry of the same was 2nd July 1999. Though the complainant had informed these facts to the Air hostess and the Pilot, there was no response from their side. This act of opposite party in giving adulterated food has caused sufferings to the complainant. The act of the opposite party in giving adulterated food is highly condemnable and is a serious offence under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Hence this complaint has been necessitated claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with other reliefs.
2. The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The alleged deficiency in service has occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and also outside Kerala. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The allegation that the complainant developed any stomach problems or sickness is absolutely false. He has not raised any such complaints to any of the staff of the opposite party. Even assuming that the complainant had developed any stomach problem, it has no relevancy with respect to the oranage juice supplied by the opposite party in the air craft. No other passengers in the aircraft had any such problems. The complainant has mistakenly read and understood the manufacturing date as January 1999 instead of the actual and correct manufacturing date printed on the packet of the orange juice as November 1999 and the staff of the opposite party had explained the fact to the complainant. The allegation that the opposite party's staffs have given the complainant adulterated food and caused great physical and mental pain to the complainant are absolutely false and is hereby denied. Since the demand of the complainant is not based on any laches or deficiency in service of the opposite party no compensation could be given by the opposite party. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. In view of the above facts, the points for our consideration are: Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Reliefs and Costs?
Both parties have filed affidavits. Exts. P1 to P4 were marked on behalf of the complainant. The complainant has sworn that 5 documents have been produced and accordingly it has been noted as Exts. P1 to P5 but on verification Exts. P1 to P4 were only produced and marked accordingly. There is no Ext. P5. Opposite party had no evidence.
4. Point No. (i): One of the main contention of the opposite party is that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the alleged deficiency in service has occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and outside Kerala also. As per the complaint, the complainant had to travel in flight No.IC 167 Delhi – Bombay flight and while on board he was served with a packet of 'Onjus' Orange juice.
As per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act
(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.
5. Accordingly, the matter to be ascertained is whether part of the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Undoubtedly, the opposite party – Indian Airlines has office in Trivandrum as is evidenced from the version which has been filed by the opposite party represented by its Station Manager, Thiruvananthapuram. 6. Ext. P3 goes to prove that the complainant had sent a fax on 16/12/1999 to the opposite party for which the opposite party has sent a reply dated 16/12/1999 to the complainant at his Thiruvananthapuram address. From the above referred document, it can be seen that, the allegation in the complaint with regard to the Onjus juice, has been brought to the notice of the opposite party immediately and the reply has been seen sent by the opposite party at the Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram address of the complainant, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Besides this, the counsel for the complainant had argued that the tickets were booked from Thiruvananthapuram, though there is no pleading with regard to the same in the complaint.
7. Moreover, though the opposite party has raised the objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint regarding territorial jurisdiction in their version, they have not insisted for hearing on the same at the initial stage itself. Objection regarding territorial jurisdiction should have been taken at the earliest opportunity. Now that at the final stage of the proceedings of the case that too after about 10 years of filing of this complaint, we do not find it just and proper to oust the territorial jurisdiction as the Consumer Forum is undoubtedly a quasi-judicial body which is required to observe the principles of natural justice but not absolute technicalities developed under various substantive provisions of law. The object of the Act would be defeated if the said contention of the opposite party is considered at this final stage of the case. Hence at this stage, the ousting of jurisdiction would be unfair and oppressive to the complaint.
8. There is no dispute that this Forum is competent to entertain the complaint even if only a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Cause of action as is well known is a bundle of facts. The opposite party did not dispute Ext.P3 even while maintaining that the entire cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In Ext.P3 it is evident that the opposite party has acknowledged the receipt of complaint sent through fax. Taking into consideration of the above discussions and Ext.P3 we hold that, part of the cause of action has arisen within Thiruvananhapuram and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
9. Points (ii) & (iii) : The opposite party do not have a case that Ext.P2 has not been supplied by them. Moreover the learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complainant got annoyed after checking the manufacturing date found on the packet of Orange juice supplied by the opposite party in the aircraft and in fact the complainant has mistakenly read the manufacturing date found on the packet of Orange juice as January 1999 instead of the actual and correct manufacturing date printed on the packet of the Orange juice as November 1999. We have carefully perused Ext.P2, the alleged packet of the 'Onjus' orange juice. The date of packing has been very conspicuously printed as 2/1/99. Though the opposite party contend that the date printed on the packet is as November 1999, we find that by no stretch of imagination it could be read so. It has been very clearly printed that packed on 2/1/99 and the MRP also has been printed as Rs.12.00. In the above circumstance, the contention of the opposite party regarding the date of manufacturing as November 1999 is found baseless and without any force.
10. In Ext.P2 it has been printed that 'consume within six months from manufacturing date'. The next aspect for consideration accordingly is whether the complainant has been supplied with an orange juice, by the opposite party, after the date of expiry. Undisputedly, the date of travel of the complainant is on 15/12/99. As per Ext.P2, the date of expiry is 6 months from 2/1/99 which means it has to be consumed within 2/7/99. But Ext.P2 has been served to the complainant on 15/12/99 ie., after about four months from the date of expiry which definitely is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the above circumstance, there is no necessity to follow the procedures as laid in Sec. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act as contended by the opposite party. It is the responsibility of the opposite party to see to it that the passengers are served with good food but the opposite party has failed to comply with the same.
11. Though the complainant has alleged that he had stomach problems and sickness after consuming the same, there is no evidence supporting the same. But it is normal that, one may have stomach problems after consuming food items which are already expired. But the complainant has not adduced any corroborative evidence for his claim of Rs.1,00,000/-.
12. From the facts and circumstance of the case and for the foregoing discussion we find that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience suffered and for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is also found entitled for an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with a cost of Rs.2,000/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12%.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of July, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.325/2000
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of Boarding pass economy class of Fit No-IC 167 dated 15/12/99 P2 : Onjus cover number 8901494009567
P3 : Photocopy of letter dated 16/12/99 issued by the opposite party P4 : Photocopy of letter dated 7/1/2000
Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No: 325/2000 Filed on 14/06/2000
Dated: 15..07..2009
Complainant: Dr. G.C. Gopala Pillai, Managing Director, KINFRA, T.C.14/1026, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. G.S. Reghunath)
Opposite party: Indian Airlines Ltd., Airlines House, New Delhi – 110 001. Represented by its Managing Director.
(By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 12..03..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05.2009, the Forum on 15..07..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER:
Facts giving rise to the filing of the complaint are the following: The complainant, who is the Managing Director of Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, as a part of his official duty had to travel in flight No.IC 167 Delhi – Bombay flight on 15/12/1999. On Board, the passengers were supplied with Onjus (orange juice) and the complainant also consumed Onjus, manufactured by M/s. Enkay Texofood Industries Ltd. Immediately after consuming the Onjus, the complainant developed stomach problems and sickness. On verification, the complainant found that the date of expiry of the same was 2nd July 1999. Though the complainant had informed these facts to the Air hostess and the Pilot, there was no response from their side. This act of opposite party in giving adulterated food has caused sufferings to the complainant. The act of the opposite party in giving adulterated food is highly condemnable and is a serious offence under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Hence this complaint has been necessitated claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with other reliefs.
2. The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The alleged deficiency in service has occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and also outside Kerala. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The allegation that the complainant developed any stomach problems or sickness is absolutely false. He has not raised any such complaints to any of the staff of the opposite party. Even assuming that the complainant had developed any stomach problem, it has no relevancy with respect to the oranage juice supplied by the opposite party in the air craft. No other passengers in the aircraft had any such problems. The complainant has mistakenly read and understood the manufacturing date as January 1999 instead of the actual and correct manufacturing date printed on the packet of the orange juice as November 1999 and the staff of the opposite party had explained the fact to the complainant. The allegation that the opposite party's staffs have given the complainant adulterated food and caused great physical and mental pain to the complainant are absolutely false and is hereby denied. Since the demand of the complainant is not based on any laches or deficiency in service of the opposite party no compensation could be given by the opposite party. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. In view of the above facts, the points for our consideration are: Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Reliefs and Costs?
Both parties have filed affidavits. Exts. P1 to P4 were marked on behalf of the complainant. The complainant has sworn that 5 documents have been produced and accordingly it has been noted as Exts. P1 to P5 but on verification Exts. P1 to P4 were only produced and marked accordingly. There is no Ext. P5. Opposite party had no evidence.
4. Point No. (i): One of the main contention of the opposite party is that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the alleged deficiency in service has occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and outside Kerala also. As per the complaint, the complainant had to travel in flight No.IC 167 Delhi – Bombay flight and while on board he was served with a packet of 'Onjus' Orange juice.
As per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act
(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.
5. Accordingly, the matter to be ascertained is whether part of the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Undoubtedly, the opposite party – Indian Airlines has office in Trivandrum as is evidenced from the version which has been filed by the opposite party represented by its Station Manager, Thiruvananthapuram. 6. Ext. P3 goes to prove that the complainant had sent a fax on 16/12/1999 to the opposite party for which the opposite party has sent a reply dated 16/12/1999 to the complainant at his Thiruvananthapuram address. From the above referred document, it can be seen that, the allegation in the complaint with regard to the Onjus juice, has been brought to the notice of the opposite party immediately and the reply has been seen sent by the opposite party at the Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram address of the complainant, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Besides this, the counsel for the complainant had argued that the tickets were booked from Thiruvananthapuram, though there is no pleading with regard to the same in the complaint.
7. Moreover, though the opposite party has raised the objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint regarding territorial jurisdiction in their version, they have not insisted for hearing on the same at the initial stage itself. Objection regarding territorial jurisdiction should have been taken at the earliest opportunity. Now that at the final stage of the proceedings of the case that too after about 10 years of filing of this complaint, we do not find it just and proper to oust the territorial jurisdiction as the Consumer Forum is undoubtedly a quasi-judicial body which is required to observe the principles of natural justice but not absolute technicalities developed under various substantive provisions of law. The object of the Act would be defeated if the said contention of the opposite party is considered at this final stage of the case. Hence at this stage, the ousting of jurisdiction would be unfair and oppressive to the complaint.
8. There is no dispute that this Forum is competent to entertain the complaint even if only a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Cause of action as is well known is a bundle of facts. The opposite party did not dispute Ext.P3 even while maintaining that the entire cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In Ext.P3 it is evident that the opposite party has acknowledged the receipt of complaint sent through fax. Taking into consideration of the above discussions and Ext.P3 we hold that, part of the cause of action has arisen within Thiruvananhapuram and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
9. Points (ii) & (iii) : The opposite party do not have a case that Ext.P2 has not been supplied by them. Moreover the learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complainant got annoyed after checking the manufacturing date found on the packet of Orange juice supplied by the opposite party in the aircraft and in fact the complainant has mistakenly read the manufacturing date found on the packet of Orange juice as January 1999 instead of the actual and correct manufacturing date printed on the packet of the Orange juice as November 1999. We have carefully perused Ext.P2, the alleged packet of the 'Onjus' orange juice. The date of packing has been very conspicuously printed as 2/1/99. Though the opposite party contend that the date printed on the packet is as November 1999, we find that by no stretch of imagination it could be read so. It has been very clearly printed that packed on 2/1/99 and the MRP also has been printed as Rs.12.00. In the above circumstance, the contention of the opposite party regarding the date of manufacturing as November 1999 is found baseless and without any force.
10. In Ext.P2 it has been printed that 'consume within six months from manufacturing date'. The next aspect for consideration accordingly is whether the complainant has been supplied with an orange juice, by the opposite party, after the date of expiry. Undisputedly, the date of travel of the complainant is on 15/12/99. As per Ext.P2, the date of expiry is 6 months from 2/1/99 which means it has to be consumed within 2/7/99. But Ext.P2 has been served to the complainant on 15/12/99 ie., after about four months from the date of expiry which definitely is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the above circumstance, there is no necessity to follow the procedures as laid in Sec. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act as contended by the opposite party. It is the responsibility of the opposite party to see to it that the passengers are served with good food but the opposite party has failed to comply with the same.
11. Though the complainant has alleged that he had stomach problems and sickness after consuming the same, there is no evidence supporting the same. But it is normal that, one may have stomach problems after consuming food items which are already expired. But the complainant has not adduced any corroborative evidence for his claim of Rs.1,00,000/-.
12. From the facts and circumstance of the case and for the foregoing discussion we find that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience suffered and for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is also found entitled for an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with a cost of Rs.2,000/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12%.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of July, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.325/2000
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of Boarding pass economy class of Fit No-IC 167 dated 15/12/99 P2 : Onjus cover number 8901494009567
P3 : Photocopy of letter dated 16/12/99 issued by the opposite party P4 : Photocopy of letter dated 7/1/2000
Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
