Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/171

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Indigo - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Kumar

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  171 dated 28.04.2023.                                       Date of decision: 01.10.2024. 

Pawan Kumar S/o. Late Sh. Hem Raj, permanent resident of PETZOLDGASSE 8, STRASSHOF 2231 AN DER NORDBAHN (GKZ 30856) AUSTRIA (Europe) and earlier r/o. Central town Chowk, Phagwara, Kapurthala, Punjab, India-144401.                                                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. IndiGo (Registered Office), Upper Ground Floor, Thapar House, Gate No.2, Western Wing, 124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (India) through its Proprietor/Partner/Director.
2. M/s. IndiGo (Corporate Office), Level 1, Tower-C, Global Business Park Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana (India) through its Proprietor/Partner/Director.                                                                                                                                                 …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rakesh Kumar Verma, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant is a NRI and senior citizen. The OPs are doing business of Airlines and the complainant availed services of the OPs when he visited Vienna (Austria) to Chandigarh (India). The complainant booked online air ticket with OPs on 04.02.2023 at 08.58 Hrs bearing reference No.FZ65HE from Ludhiana. The ticket was confirmed and scheduled from Riyadh at 22:45 hrs on 23.02.2023 to Delhi at 05:30 hrs on 24.02.2023 and from Delhi at 07:40 am on 24.02.2023 to Chandigarh at 08:40 hrs on 24.02.2023. The complainant started his journey from Vienna (Austria) and reached Riyadh Airport at about 03.00 PM and asked the airport authority for his scheduled air tickets and flight then the airport authority told him that “your flight has been already departure at 07:45 Hrs.” The complainant further stated that he shocked to know this and he showed his tickets to the authority/officers but they told the complainant that his flight schedule has suddenly been changed by Indigo, which was from Riyadh to Mumbai and Mumbai to Chandigarh”. However, on enquiry, he did not get any reply from the airport authorities. Even the complainant was unable to make any phone call due to services not available at the airport. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental and physical harassment. The complainant through his son urgently booked a fresh ticked from Riyadh at 22:45 Hrs on 24.02.2023 to Delhi at 05:30 Hrs on 25.02.2023 and from Delhi at 07:40 Hrs on 25.02.2023 to Chandigarh at 06:40 Hrs on 25.02.2023. During that period the complainant was compelled to stay one night at Riyadh Airport in Hotel Room. Thereafter, the complainant informed the OPs about the said matter but to no effect. The complainant served a legal notice dated 24.03.2023 upon the OPs but no reply was received from the OPs. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.35,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, none turned up on behalf of the OPs despite service of notice and as such, the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.07.2023.

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the exparte arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.

5.                Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a “Jurisdictional Clause” which provides three kinds of jurisdictions namely Pecuniary, Territorial and Jurisdiction based upon cause of action to file a complaint before the District Commission. Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:-

“34. Jurisdiction of District Commission. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission 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, ordinarily 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 the permission of the District Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain. 19

(3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time.”

6.                Also the jurisdiction against the airlines is required to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The jurisdiction in case of a carriage by air is governed by rule 33 of Schedule 3 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“33. (1) An action for damages shall be brought, at the option of the claimant of damages, in the territory of one of the State Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business, or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made or before the court at the place of destination.

(2) In respect of damage resulting from the death or injury of a passenger, an action may be brought before one of the courts mentioned in sub-rule (1), or in the territory of a State Party in which at the time of the accident the passenger has his or her principal and permanent residence and to or from which the carrier operates services for the carriage of passengers by air, either on its own aircraft, or on another carrier's aircraft pursuant to a commercial agreement, and in which that carrier conducts its business of carriage of passengers by air from premises leased or owned by the carrier itself or by another carrier with which it has a commercial agreement.

(3) For the purposes of sub-rule (2)-

(a) “commercial agreement” means an agreement, other than an agency agreement, made between carriers and relating to the provision of their joint services for carriage of passengers by air;

(b) “principal and permanent residence” means the one fixed and permanent abode of the passenger at the time of the accident. The nationality of the passenger shall not be the determining factor in this regard.

(4) Questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the court seized of the case.”

Thereafter, the action could be initiated only it either the place of destination or where the carrier as domicile or of its principal place of business or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made.

7.                In the present case, admittedly, Pawan Kumar is a resident of Austria and had a native place at Central Town Chowk, Phagwara, Kapurthala. The journey was to be commenced from Vienna (Austria) and was to terminate at Chandigarh here the complainant was scheduled to meet a lawyer. Further the ticket was booked online. Although it is averred that it was booked from Ludhiana. No record or particulars of the ticketing agent has been brought on record to prove that the ticket was booked from Ludhiana. The complainant could  have initiated the complaint either at Chandigarh, New Delhi or at Gurugram where the OPs had their registered office and corporate office respectively. So applying provisions of Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and Carriage By Air Act, 1972, this Commission is of the considered view that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complaint is hereby returned to the complainant with liberty to file in the court of competent jurisdiction if he so desires.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is dispensed  with an order that the complaint is hereby returned to the complainant with liberty to file complaint in the court having competent jurisdiction if he desires so. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.   

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.10.2024.

Gobind Ram.