Delhi

StateCommission

A/195/2019

ASHA SAHIB - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AIR FRANCE - Opp.Party(s)

ABISHEK KAUL

12 Apr 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                             Date of Decision: 12.04.2019

First Appeal No. 195/2019

(Arising out of the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in complaint case No. 18/2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI, ‘M’ Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002)

In the matter of:

Asha Sahib

W/o Sh. B L Sahib

Add: SK-708, Shipra Krishna

Vista, Ahinsa Khand, Plot No. 14

Indrapuram, Shipra Sun City

Ghaziabad, UP-201014                   …….Appellant

 

Versus

 

M/s Air France

LB-46, Prakash Deep Building

Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001        .........Respondent

                                                                  

BEFORE:

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                  -                  PRESIDENT

SALMA NOOR                                   -                  MEMBER

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                    Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                      Yes

ORDER

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.      Present is an appeal under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act (in short the, ‘Act’) against order dated 28.02.2019 passed by Ld. District Forum VI New Delhi whereby complaint case no. 18/2019 has been dismissed on the ground that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the same.
2.     Counsel for appellant/complainant has submitted that the District Forum has dismissed the complaint at admission stage. It is submitted that a complaint under section 12 of the Act was filed against respondent/OP wherein it was alleged that appellant/complainant had booked her tickets online through travel agent for New Delhi to United States of America and in view of her medical condition, she was prescribed to take wheel chair for her movement. It was alleged that on return from United States of America, appellant/complainant was not provided wheel chair at the Airport in Paris, even though the same was specifically booked. It was alleged that due to non-providing of wheel chair, health condition of appellant/complainant has been affected. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondent/OP, a complaint was filed before Ld. District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the same by holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
3.     It is contended that Ld. District Forum has not appreciated true facts of the case.  It is submitted that the online ticket system of respondent/OP is operated by respondent/OP from its office at New Delhi. It is submitted that tickets were booked online by appellant/complainant from New Delhi and it was accepted by respondent-1/OPs registered office at New Delhi which is at Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. It is further submitted that all the communications about alleged deficiency in service were made by appellant/complainant to the office of respondent/OP which is at New Delhi. In support of arguments Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of National Commission in Rohit Srivastava v. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., FA No.1728/2016 decided on 5.7.2017.  The relevant portion of judgment is as under:

 

“Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that the order cannot be sustained.It is not in dispute that the Registered Office of Opposite Party No.1 Company is situated in Delhi, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission at Delhi and therefore, in the light of clear provision contained in Section 17(2)(a), which stipulates that a Complaint can be instituted in a State Commission, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the Opposite Party actually carries on business. In view of the said provision, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that since the Registered Office of the first Opposite Party is situated in Delhi, the State Commission did have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. In the light of the said provision, in our view, it was open to the Complainant to choose the Forum to file the Complaint, which on the second occasion he decided to file before the State Commission at Delhi.”

 

4.   In view of the above discussion, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand back the matter to the District Forum for re-considering the matter afresh on the point of territorial jurisdiction after considering the material discussed above including the material on record.
5. Parties to appear before the District Forum on 14.05.2019.
6. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum for information. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member