Delhi

New Delhi

CC/192/2020

Jyot Bhajan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2021

ORDER

 

 

           CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.  192/2020                                             Dated:

In the matter of:

 

Jyot Bhajan Singh

                R/o Bandhu Rakh

              Near Last Army Gate Kunjwani

             Gangyal, Jammu City

              Jammu & Kashmir-180010                                                      …Complainant

 

Versus

Inter Globe Aviation Limited

(IndiGo Airlines) through its Manager

Central Wing, Ground Floor

Thapar House, 124, Janpath

New Delhi-110001

 

Qatar Airways

Through its Manager

Ground Floor, Bajaj Bhawan

Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021

… Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

         ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in services and claiming a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- besides other relief.

Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that office of OP is situated at New Delhi-110001 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, so, this Commission is competent to adjudicate the matter.

The perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action occurred at the office of the OP at Barkhamba Road, New Delhi.

Counsel for complainant also mentioned about the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, titled as Ashutosh Gangwar & Anr. Vs. Silvergrades Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ans Ors. 2020 NCDRC 308.

On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the 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, we hold that this District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in the light of the judgment of Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009 and the legal position discussed above. 

The judgement cited by the counsel for the complainant titled as Ashutosh Gangwar & Anr. Vs. Silvergrades Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ans Ors. 2020 NCDRC 308 is “per incuriam”   of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above. It is also observed that the judgment was delivered by the Single Member of the Hon’ble National Commission.

Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the concerned Commission in accordance with Law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  to   the

case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 17/03/2021.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                       

 

 

(R.C. MEENA)

MEMBER